VIDEO: Eurasianism vs. Atlanticism – Flores on U.S Sabotage of the EU


In this piece, Flores explains part of the history of the EU, and the US designs to sabotage the EU. The video is after the text, and the text adds little for those able to watch the video.  

Apr 6, 2019 


The EU currency was launched at the end of the last century, and the US was supportive of this based on the strategy that the EU would be developed on a market basis. The US saw that the Euro ‘dollar’ would be a valuable single currency that would hold together European foreign policy, because they saw, naturally that there were different loci of European power,  and if they couldn’t brought together in a coherent way, then NATO could become weaker.

At the same time, and what is an interesting twist,  is that there was a strong view among European leaders that if Europe would ever carve and independent course, if there would ever be an EU Army, that this would also require a European single currency in the EU.

History of the EU Crisis:

In 1996 and 97, the US experienced a very large market crisis which it pushed onto the Tiger Economies in Asia, and that created a market crash then. There was a significant bailout around this, which resulted in a speculative bubble, which in turn burst – and this crash was known as the ‘Dot Com Crash’ within four or so years in 2001.

The response to this for the US, and how this ended being Europe’s problem, is that they ended up using a lot of European capital to build up in this bailout in 2001 or 2002, to invest into two areas: the military – and necessarily the expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe purchasing these goods, and the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Second, was the housing market bubble which was created then.

This resulted in the 2007 period housing market crisis in the U.S, where the too-big-to-fail banks were ultimately bailed out. But this problem was pushed onto Europe, because Europe was sold these repackaged debts, and from Europe the crisis was pushed onto Greece.

Now today, we are seeing pushes from EU elites to have an independent course. EU would like to have its own multipolar policy,  including investment with the US, with Russia, with China – they actually opposed the Iran sanctions, and US interference had very little to do with European prosperity.

So, the US, to punish Europe and create problems, we saw the use of the refugee crisis by the US against the EU. Atlanticist leaders in the EU signed onto this, as that is their role. The idea was to have the start of the Russian campaign in Syria, line up with the start of the refugee crisis.

The plan was to make the claim that because Russia was bombing civilian areas, Russia had created a humanitarian crisis in Syria, and that was the cause of the refugee crisis. The idea was to blame Russia for the refugee crisis, and even to insinuate that the crisis itself was planned by Russia in order to destabilize Europe.

That last notion is a ludicrous one, which the U.S has promoted in its narrative, and which opponents of FRN/CSS have tried to say outright. The reality is that both European civil wars bubbled up into wars upon Russia, WWI and WWII – Russia knows that destabilization of Europe is always caused by outside influencers, and that the ‘final solution’ of this conflict is the destruction of Russia. So it is Russia that wants stability and prosperity in the EU. They need reliable trade partners, and always aim towards regional de-escalation of tensions.

The refugee crisis was in part manufactured by the U.S, instead. We can recall that at the end of the Summer of 2015, Russia indicated that soon they would be involved openly in the Syrian war by way of invitation from Syria, using the Russian air-force.

So the U.S planned with its Atlanticist partners in the EU (against the needs of the EU’s Europeanists and EU’s Eurasianists) to time the start of the refugee crisis with the start of the Russian air campaign.

This was for sure to be a media simulacrum, a holographic reality, because these refugees would be coming primarily from Turkey, and secondly from Lebanon, where many had lived since the start of the war years ago. But the ‘idea’ that audiences would take away from this is that these Syrian refugees were coming directly from where Russia was ‘bombing civilians’.

Russia saw this was the plan, and so announced the start of the campaign, but misled the world. Europe issued an open border decree, and Turkey worked to help, pushing a migrant march through the Balkans. Except their was a problem. Russia lied about the start of their campaign, the EU announced open borders, and the ‘migrant march’ began a  month before the Russian campaign.

Therefore, it was very difficult for the US to claim that the Russian campaign was the source of millions of people suddenly ‘fleeing’ from Syria.

Still, we can see all of this as an example of the US successfully using pressure politics on the EU. We could see from this that Turkey and the U.S coordinated this pressure move on the EU – the US does not want to see the EU develop its own foreign policy. That is the primary issue.

In the future, we should expect the US to promote ‘New Europe’ a preferable to ‘Old Europe’, to create an Intermarium. But this is not a viable project, and the US is misleading leaders of Eastern Europan, Baltic and Balkan states that this is a viable project. The main idea is to contain Russia.

Because Eurasian and European ties continue to grow despite political interference of Atlanticism in the EU, the US wants to create a military cordon-zone in middel-europa separating Russia and the EU.

One of the reasons this problem came about is that the US has inherited a fallacious view of Russia from England, based on the state of geopolitics in the 19th century. This view is that Russia represents the core of Heartland (Eurasia), that if Russia controls all of the Heartland (Eurasia) then it will dominate the world. But this was not the world, but the world of concern to England.

But the US does not need to have this view and this geostrategic orientation. The US is not England, it is not a small island that needs to dominate European politics through divide and conquer. The US which spans from the Atlantic to the Pacific and also has tremendous influence across the two continents of the Americas, could be its own independent New World land-power, without interference in Eurasian-European and Mid-east affairs.

But the US is committed ideologically and economically to Atlanticism, a globalist agenda, they push to establish institutions around the world. There are not only economic dimension of this, but cultural. So the destruction of Europe is connected to the US wanting to uproot any civilizations that have indigenous roots at all. Whether these are indigenous Europeans, indigenous Africans, indigenous Asians – the US is committed to a neoliberal vision of the world which atomizes people, tears them apart, turns communities into individuals making them easier to manipulate through advertising, towards being good consumers.


This was piece filmed on May 6th, 2016 at Moscow’s Katehon Analytic Center on Tverskaya Street in Moscow, just a few meters from the Kremlin.


Subscribe to our newsletter
Sign up here to get the latest news, updates and special offers delivered directly to your inbox.
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x