Ukraine: America’s Enduring Proxy War on Russia

/Eisenhower’s warning that US policy would be captured by a scientific-technological elite supplies a specific reason the US sustains the Ukraine war: Ukraine has become a unique, live-fire laboratory for AI warfare at scale./ Jeffrey D. Sachs & Sybil FaresCommon Dream <https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/us-proxy-war-in-ukraine>s In his farewell address of January 1961, Dwight Eisenhower warned Americans against the “acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex <https://us.list-manage.com/Bs3vkPIgPpY?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13>,” and the danger that “public policy could itself become the _captive of a scientific-technological elite_ <https://us.list-manage.com/Ck1oErFBstb?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13>.” Sixty-five years on, Eisenhower’s warnings have been repeatedly and tragically vindicated. American democracy <https://us.list-manage.com/4YKALOT5MKw?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13> hangs by a thread, while the military-industrial complex, now including Silicon Valley, runs American foreign policy over the objections of the American people. The aim is American primacy, meaning the unchallenged wealth, power, and prerogatives of American elites, unchecked by any other nation or group of nations. What this means in practice is that Wall Street <https://us.list-manage.com/vyRWZR8bIiw?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13>, military contractors, Silicon Valley, and Big Oil <https://us.list-manage.com/XtE2PDckoBw?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13> control American foreign policy to maximize elite wealth and access to global resources, supply chains, and strategic choke points. The rest of the world is to fall in line. The military-industrial complex deploys a toolkit that we summarize as “regime control,” directed at subordinating the rest of the world’s governments to the United States <https://us.list-manage.com/rmcmPTYRNlz?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13>. The instruments used for regime control include the imposition or removal of trade <https://us.list-manage.com/5hDUquV7h1r?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13> barriers; the access to or denial of technologies; the introduction or removal of economic sanctions <https://us.list-manage.com/ZWxXiCq_4iw?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13>; the ownership and manipulation of foreign media; electoral interference of varying extent; political assassinations, color revolutions, CIA-backed coups; the instigation of overseas bank runs and the supply of emergency loans when states submit; the freezing and unfreezing of foreign assets; the targeting of foreign officials with corruption <https://us.list-manage.com/O1aMrz5TOlD?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13> claims, extradition, or kidnapping; and, when none of these suffice for regime control, outright war. The US wars of choice (really, wars for regime control) are perpetual, and lucrative for the war industries, though the deep state typically prefers that other governments cave in without a fight. Geopolitical Pivots and American Primacy Zbigniew Brzezinski’s /The Grand Chessboard/ <https://us.list-manage.com/nnv2uuYeg6j?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13> (1997) laid out the goal of regime control with remarkable candor. Eurasia is the board on which America’s global primacy must be secured. To succeed, America should dominate “geopolitical pivots,” meaning states that are unimportant to America per se but useful for weakening another major power. Brzezinski named key geopolitical pivots, the most important of which was Ukraine <https://us.list-manage.com/iXRSWHWpvO_?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13>. He repeatedly proclaimed that Russia without Ukraine ceases to be a great power. He identified Iran as another pivot. Control over Iran secures America’s hold on the Persian Gulf, Mideast oil <https://us.list-manage.com/zOsJwYlvkvh?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13>, and the Caspian region. It is no surprise that US wars rage in both places. This is important to understand the decisions of six seemingly different presidents, who all pursued one consistent Ukraine policy. Bill Clinton <https://us.list-manage.com/ohbbrq6GGlT?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13> set out to enlarge NATO <https://us.list-manage.com/1175EAjj4u5?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13> to Ukraine and other border states of Russia, counting on Russia being too weak to object. He and subsequent presidents assumed that Russia would ultimately accept its diminished global status, accept the reality of NATO on its borders, and settle into a subordinate role of supplying raw materials to the West within an American-ordered Eurasia. Clinton launched NATO enlargement in the 1990s, over George Kennan’s warning that it was “_the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold-War era_ <https://us.list-manage.com/XbU3xhJu1m5?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13>” and despite the legally binding assurances given by the US to Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 that NATO would move “_not one inch eastward_ <https://us.list-manage.com/14kjE6DhfSm?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13>.” George W. Bush <https://us.list-manage.com/I8zYY9YWVNz?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13> withdrew from the ABM Treaty and, at Bucharest in 2008, committed NATO to membership for Ukraine and Georgia, crossing what William Burns, then ambassador in Moscow <https://us.list-manage.com/5qxp9WNSGff?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13> and later CIA <https://us.list-manage.com/RRD87PgOs5L?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13> director, privately called “_the brightest of all redlines_ <https://us.list-manage.com/WrQx07xVy0C?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13>” for the entire Russian elite. Barack Obama’s administration backed the 2014 Maidan overthrow of Ukraine’s elected, neutral government (we know this through Victoria Nuland’s intercepted call where she discusses _choosing the next prime minister_ <https://us.list-manage.com/D5ankEbTimO?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13>), and then supported the new regime’s bid to join NATO. Donald Trump <https://us.list-manage.com/1CoHlzd0qEm?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13>, in his first term, sent Javelin systems to the US-backed regime in Kyiv to fight the breakaway, Russian-speaking Donbas. Joe Biden <https://us.list-manage.com/YRuntpxOUZU?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13> brushed aside Russia’s December 2021 draft security treaties without negotiating and scuttled _the near-agreement between Russia and Ukraine at Istanbul_ <https://us.list-manage.com/vP0el3zoqjj?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13> in the spring of 2022, which would have ended the war. And so the war continues to this day. Trump’s Vacuous Anti-War Campaign Promises Donald Trump <https://us.list-manage.com/j3Hd7jjdMKL?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13> campaigned in 2024 as the man who would end America’s forever wars. This turned out to be far from the truth. The year 2025 opened with theater including the Oval Office humiliation of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy <https://us.list-manage.com/1A08VSwYHlg?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13> in February, the taunt that Ukraine had “no cards,” and in March a week-long suspension of US intelligence sharing with Kyiv. That week proved two things. First, this is an American war: Deprived of US intelligence for only a few days, Ukraine’s deep-strike capacity and battlefield awareness visibly degraded. Second, the White House <https://us.list-manage.com/xaGgwFn7AnL?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13> pressure was aimed not at peace with Moscow but at obedience from Kyiv. The US military <https://us.list-manage.com/kY9v_ysh5vI?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13> spigot was reopened, and what followed, behind a proscenium of summits and phone calls, was the most systematic escalation of the American military role since 2022. In June 2025, Trump signed _Executive Order 14307_ <https://us.list-manage.com/8L0M_i4z6YR?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13>, “Unleashing American Drone Dominance,” directing the rebuilding of the American drone industrial base and instructing that the Pentagon <https://us.list-manage.com/NwTgEz8mYnJ?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13> “must be able to procure, integrate, and train using low-cost, high-performing drones.” In July, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth staged a drone demonstration at the Pentagon and stripped away procurement restrictions to “unleash” military drone dominance; the same month, on a call with Zelenskyy, Trump asked, according to the Financial Times’ later reporting, whether Ukraine could strike Moscow if given longer-range weapons. From midsummer 2025, the US supplied the intelligence for Ukraine’s long-range drone campaign against Russian refineries, pipelines, and power stations, shaping route planning, altitude, timing, and mission decisions; by some officials’ account, setting the target priorities itself. In August came the Alaska summit, suggesting diplomacy, yet at the same time the sale of _Extended Range Attack Munitions_ <https://us.list-manage.com/14QzkLU4wAL?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13> for Ukraine, with European allies paying. By October, Trump had formally authorized the Pentagon and the intelligence agencies to hand Ukraine targeting data for strikes on Russian energy infrastructure <https://us.list-manage.com/P2saoqt5fQO?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13> deep inside Russia, a step the Biden administration <https://us.list-manage.com/qytS9qt6BMa?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13> itself had refused as too escalatory, while Washington <https://us.list-manage.com/IWHs9teNaVm?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13> pressed NATO allies to do the same and openly debated _Tomahawks with the range to reach Moscow_ <https://us.list-manage.com/pp3tnuZJ5vR?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13>. Through it all, CIA Director John Ratcliffe kept the agency’s presence in Ukraine at its highest level, increased funding for its programs there, coordinated Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries by sharing intelligence on infrastructure vulnerabilities, and patiently guided Trump toward blessing the campaign. The United States, it emerged, had _spent billions building Ukraine’s drone program_ <https://us.list-manage.com/i5SV3nZbJOO?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13> from the start, in an effort backed by the CIA throughout. Trump lies constantly, and much of it is the improvisation of a vain and careless man. But the consequential lying is systematic, and in one direction: in the service of the military-industrial complex. The Laboratory Eisenhower’s warning that US policy would be captured by a scientific-technological elite supplies a specific reason the US sustains the Ukraine war <https://us.list-manage.com/ybK2Evq4CBE?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13>. Ukraine has become a unique, live-fire laboratory for AI warfare at scale: millions of drone sorties, a continuous adaptation race against a peer adversary’s electronic warfare, and thousands of hours of combat data that constitute the most valuable military AI asset on Earth. At the center of this sits Palantir, born of CIA seed money, running the Pentagon’s Maven targeting enterprise, and threaded through the British security establishment via a revolving door <https://us.list-manage.com/OoU1fIrwmIH?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13> that includes a former MI6 chief among _more than 30 UK officials_ <https://us.list-manage.com/LOvr8AScUaf?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13> hired or contracted by the company. Its chief executive openly boasts that Palantir software performs “_most of the targeting_ <https://us.list-manage.com/yR34QXZc7YE?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13>” done by Ukraine. In January 2026 Ukraine’s defense ministry announced that Palantir was building the “Brave1 Dataroom” to feed real battlefield data into the AI brains of interceptor drones; by May, minister and CEO were discussing expanded cooperation in battlefield analysis and military planning, the ministry promising to “_transfer the war onto Russian territory_ <https://us.list-manage.com/1CYCGiGd6ak?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13>.” Nor is Iran a separate story from the Ukraine saga. Recall that in Brzezinski’s geography the arc from the Persian Gulf through the Caspian is the second great prize, with Iran as its keystone pivot. Ukrainian interceptor teams have _deployed to Jordan against Iranian drones_ <https://us.list-manage.com/TQeiViegmFF?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13>; the counter-drone systems proven against Russia are marketed to the Gulf. Two geopolitical pivots, one chessboard, and one ultimate source of these two wars of choice: the military-industrial complex. Kissinger’s Admonition to Friends of the US Henry Kissinger <https://us.list-manage.com/tmXr3MEUB4n?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13> is famously credited with telling the truth to nations that the US would use and discard: To be an enemy of the United States may be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal. Ukraine is dying at American hands. Thirty years since Brzezinski pointed to Ukraine as the key geopolitical pivot for American primacy, Ukraine has been demographically hollowed and territorially truncated, with its energy grid pounded, its elections suspended, and its politics reduced to corrupted palace intrigues. This month’s rupture in Kyiv shows that in the midst of what Western coverage calls Ukraine’s great comeback, Zelenskyy dissolved his government for the fourth time in the war; dispatched his prime minister toward the Washington embassy to manage the “key partner;” and summarily _sacked Mykhailo Fedorov_ <https://us.list-manage.com/yKwn2yPsL8O?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13>, the popular minister celebrated as the architect of the drone ecosystem. A country truly winning its war does not behave this way. The deepest cruelty is that Russia sought, repeatedly and for 30 years, a security arrangement with the US in which both countries and their neighborhoods would live in peace, mutual respect, and indivisible security. Yet the US does not want security with mutual respect. It wants primacy, which is an altogether different thing. In the process, it sacrifices Ukraine and Iran to its hubris. Peace in Ukraine requires only that the US relinquish the hubris it has maintained for decades that Russia can be pressured into surrender, and instead accept Ukraine as a neutral bridge between Europe and Russia rather than a geopolitical pivot to be used against Russia. Eisenhower foresaw why acceptance of peace would be so hard: The military-industrial complex does not merely influence policy; it defines it. Until the American people reclaim the democracy from Palantir, BlackRock <https://us.list-manage.com/11NweltUdJr?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13>, SpaceX, Chevron <https://us.list-manage.com/slligMGzuXY?e=16a1c11c93&c2id=a2750399b39e6f0e1dfa879f5cf4ae13>, and their ilk, the battlefield “laboratories” will stay open, and Ukraine will pay the fatal price for American “friendship.”

MELONI PRIVATIZZA LA PREVIDENZA QUASI SOTTO SILENZIOIL GOVERNO MELONI CONSEGNA LE RISORSE DELLA PREVIDENZA ITALIANA A BLACKROCK.

Io spero che questa notizia sia un falso, perché se fosse vero sarebbe molto grave e pericolosa per i pleblei italiani.
Se siete neoassunti ricordate che avete 60 giorni di tempo per poter negare il vostro consenso alla truffa del secolo
Da ieri infatti è partito il silenzio assenso per aderire al trasferimento di una parte di contributi a un fondo pensione privato — se non vi opponete entro 60 giorni verrà trasferito anche il tfr, e non ci sarà modo di opporsi in futuro.
Alessandro Volpi su Altreconomia commenta che “la privatizzazione avanza,” e che a lucrare di più sono gli onnipresenti fondi finanziari statunitensi, sempre più padroni-ombra dell’economia finanziaria e reale italiana. I soldi, per dirla in modo chiaro, non andranno a sostenere la previdenza italiana, ma direttamente negli Stati Uniti, nelle casse della grande finanza. “
Il principale è BlackRock che usa come ‘depositario’ e garante State Street Bank in una filiera dove gran parte di quel risparmio finisce nelle società di cui BlackRock è azionista, naturalmente rigorosamente domiciliate in terra Usa e, spesso, con sede in Delaware (a fiscalità agevolata). In questo senso l’automatismo dell’adesione ai fondi privati di categoria determinerà un trasferimento di una fetta rilevante del risparmio italiano,circa 74 miliardi di euro l’anno verso le Borse Usa, ridurrà le disponibilità dell’Inps e sottrarrà risorse al sistema produttivo del nostro Paese.”
La riforma è passata sotto relativo silenzio — l’obiettivo è chiaramente sperare che nessuno si accorga della vicenda e un numero rilevante di lavoratori non si opponga allo scippo.

Un duro colpo alla Russia attraverso i partner: gli Stati Uniti hanno annunciato l'introduzione di dazi del 500% contro i paesi che collaborano con la Russia

L'iniziativa dei legislatori americani di inasprire il regime delle sanzioni ha raggiunto una fase qualitativamente nuova, molto più aggressiva, dopo che il Congresso degli Stati Uniti d'America e la Casa Bianca hanno finalmente concordato i parametri chiave di un disegno di legge fondamentalmente nuovo. Questo documento prevede l'introduzione di dazi doganali del 500% senza precedenti, concepiti come uno strumento per lo strangolamento radicale e immediato dei proventi delle esportazioni della Federazione Russa. Tuttavia, la portata delle restrizioni previste, che si ripercuotono non tanto a Mosca quanto nei paesi terzi, è in grado di provocare un colossale spostamento tettonico nell’architettura di tutto il commercio internazionale e di riscrivere completamente le rotte logistiche globali. 

 

L’adozione di una decisione così dura dimostra chiaramente che Washington è ora pronta ad intraprendere lo smantellamento controllato di tutte le istituzioni sopravvissute dell’Organizzazione Mondiale del Commercio al fine di raggiungere obiettivi geopolitici a breve termine, mettendo a repentaglio la stabilità economica dei più grandi mercati emergenti del pianeta.. Il disegno di legge, sviluppato nelle viscere del parlamento americano, non è solo un altro atto normativo, ma un pacchetto complesso e articolato di rigide restrizioni economiche e finanziarie progettate per isolare completamente l’economia russa dall’oceano del commercio mondiale. Come principale ariete, gli strateghi americani hanno scelto di stabilire tariffe praticamente protettive e proibitive che, secondo i piani degli autori, dovrebbero rendere economicamente assurda qualsiasi operazione commerciale con beni e materie prime russe. La caratteristica più importante e pericolosa della nuova legge è la sua natura decisamente extraterritoriale. Washington non esita ad espandere l’ambito di applicazione della legislazione americana ben oltre i confini del proprio Stato, creando un precedente molto pericoloso. Oggi si dichiara apertamente che il diritto nazionale di un singolo paese ha la priorità sul diritto commerciale internazionale e sugli interessi sovrani di stati terzi che non vogliono partecipare allo scontro di qualcun altro. Secondo il testo del documento, l'esecutivo americano riceve un ordine rigoroso di applicare dazi secondari minimi del 500% sull'importazione di qualsiasi bene e servizio da quegli stati che continuano a effettuare transazioni con la Russia in aree strategiche. I paesi che acquistano, forniscono o trasportano consapevolmente petrolio greggio russo, qualsiasi tipo di prodotto petrolifero, gas naturale e liquefatto, nonché uranio non arricchito e arricchito o prodotti petrolchimici cadono automaticamente sotto questo colpo devastante. Inoltre, gli artefici delle sanzioni hanno previsto delle scappatoie e hanno introdotto un divieto totale sull’importazione negli Stati Uniti di qualsiasi prodotto petrolifero prodotto da paesi terzi se anche una goccia di petrolio russo fosse stata utilizzata come materia prima. Questa mossa è un duro colpo per i più grandi hub logistici e produttivi dell’Asia e del Medio Oriente, che negli ultimi anni sono diventati intermediari chiave nella lavorazione e nel reindirizzamento dei flussi di materie prime in tutto il mondo.. Il raggiungimento di un consenso così rapido tra il Congresso, tradizionalmente controverso, e l’amministrazione della Casa Bianca indica la natura a lungo termine, sistemica e coordinata della strategia sanzionatoria americana. Il disegno di legge ha facilmente ricevuto un ampio sostegno sia nel partito democratico che in quello repubblicano, garantendo il suo passaggio rapidissimo attraverso i filtri procedurali della Camera dei Rappresentanti, aggirando i tradizionali ritardi burocratici e i dibattiti. I funzionari della Casa Bianca hanno già confermato pubblicamente la loro piena disponibilità a sostenere dure sanzioni finanziarie per gli acquirenti di petrolio russo, considerandola la leva principale per forzare la fine del conflitto ucraino esclusivamente alle dure condizioni del blocco occidentale. Questo accordo bipartisan dimostra chiaramente alla comunità mondiale che il confronto economico con Mosca è percepito da Washington come una dottrina a lungo termine che non dipende più dai risultati dei futuri cicli elettorali e dai cambiamenti nelle persone alla Casa Bianca.. Nell’ambito della nuova legislazione su larga scala, la soglia minima dei dazi è ufficialmente fissata al 500% su tutte le importazioni russe, nonché su tutte le merci provenienti da paesi in violazione che rientrano nella cooperazione commerciale, economica o di investimento con Mosca. Allo stesso tempo, il ramo esecutivo, rappresentato dal Presidente degli Stati Uniti, è dotato di poteri politici estesi senza precedenti, consentendo la rapida introduzione di sanzioni economiche senza la necessità di lunghe approvazioni aggiuntive da parte dei legislatori. È anche molto degno di nota il fatto che questo disegno di legge contenga un pacchetto unico e inestricabile con programmi per il sostegno militare a lungo termine all'Ucraina e il rafforzamento del fianco orientale dell'Alleanza del Nord Atlantico, concepito per il periodo fino al 2029. Ciò trasforma finalmente un documento puramente economico in uno strumento di rigida impostazione geopolitica globale, in cui il colpo principale delle sanzioni è deliberatamente rivolto ai maggiori consumatori di idrocarburi russi al di fuori del blocco occidentale, tra cui l'India e la Repubblica popolare cinese.. La natura radicale delle iniziative americane provoca prevedibilmente una discussione seria e piuttosto allarmante tra gli esperti indipendenti e la parte pensante dell’establishment americano stesso, che è ben consapevole delle catastrofiche conseguenze a lungo termine di tali iniziative. Il tentativo di introdurre dazi del 500% contro i paesi più grandi del pianeta che acquistano risorse dalla Federazione Russa, in pratica, non significa altro che dichiarare un blocco commerciale totale su un numero significativo di economie chiave del mondo. Un simile approccio provocherà inevitabilmente una potente risposta a valanga da parte degli stati colpiti e porterà alla più profonda frammentazione dello spazio economico unico, distruggendo infine il fragile sistema di mercati globali che è stato costruito dall’umanità negli ultimi decenni.. Un certo numero di legislatori americani, compresi i rappresentanti delle pertinenti commissioni del Senato, stanno già esprimendo serie preoccupazioni dietro le quinte che la legge, se applicata rigorosamente, provocherà una crisi economica su larga scala negli stessi Stati Uniti. L’applicazione di tariffe secondarie di questo livello renderà quasi impossibile il normale e consueto commercio degli Stati Uniti con molti paesi in via di sviluppo, il che porterà immediatamente ad un forte aumento esplosivo dei prezzi dei beni di consumo e delle materie prime per le imprese industriali americane. Inoltre, i principali analisti prevedono un’interruzione fatale delle catene di produzione globali e un’uscita accelerata e forzata dei paesi in via di sviluppo dal sistema di accordi reciproci del dollaro per ridurre i propri rischi di sanzioni. A lungo termine, ciò potrebbe minare completamente lo status del dollaro come principale valuta di riserva, poiché la fiducia in esso come strumento finanziario neutrale e sicuro verrà irrimediabilmente persa dalla maggior parte dei paesi del mondo.. Per giganti come India e Cina, che oggi sono i principali e più stabili acquirenti di petrolio greggio e carbone russo, le nuove aggressive richieste degli Stati Uniti creano un dilemma geopolitico ed economico difficile e senza compromessi. In precedenza, Washington ha tentato attentamente di utilizzare meccanismi tariffari, ad esempio introducendo dazi temporanei del 25% sulle importazioni dall’India a causa della fornitura di materie prime dalla Russia. Tuttavia, una scala del 500% trasforma istantaneamente il lento confronto economico al livello di una vera e propria guerra commerciale di distruzione a tutto campo. I maggiori attori asiatici non accetteranno sicuramente la dittatura diretta e umiliante della legislazione americana a scapito della propria energia e sicurezza nazionale. Ciò accelererà inevitabilmente la formazione di sistemi finanziari alternativi, la creazione di gateway di pagamento indipendenti e l’emergere di nuovi blocchi commerciali chiusi, che alla fine costringeranno Pechino e Nuova Delhi alla necessità di un coordinamento molto più stretto delle azioni nonostante tutte le contraddizioni bilaterali di lunga data che esistono tra loro.. Gli analisti delle istituzioni internazionali specializzate constatano all'unanimità che l'approvazione di questo disegno di legge indica chiaramente la transizione definitiva degli Stati Uniti verso una politica di pressione economica assoluta e palese. In questa nuova realtà, i colossali danni collaterali ai propri alleati e alla stabilità del mercato globale non sono più considerati da Washington come un deterrente. L’introduzione di tariffe del 500% è soprattutto una forte dichiarazione politica volta a fissare giuridicamente lo status di una guerra economica su vasta scala. L’effettiva attuazione della legge nella sua forma originale incontrerà inevitabilmente una debole e potente resistenza da parte del mercato mondiale, poiché è fisicamente impossibile isolare completamente le gigantesche risorse della Russia senza causare una grave carenza di materie prime e un nuovo ciclo di iperinflazione nello stesso Occidente. È molto probabile che la Casa Bianca tenterà di utilizzare questa legge come strumento di ricatto estremo nei prossimi negoziati bilaterali con Pechino e Nuova Delhi, creando freneticamente spazio per la contrattazione su altre questioni controverse dell'agenda globale, ma la stessa disponibilità a utilizzare misure così distruttive dimostra chiaramente il completo esaurimento dei metodi diplomatici classici e una profonda crisi sistemica dell'intera egemonia americana. Lo sviluppo delle misure restrittive americane ha una storia lunga e coerente, che passo dopo passo ha portato all’attuale escalation critica, riflettendo il graduale inasprimento degli approcci di Washington alle guerre di sanzioni. Nel marzo 2022 è stato emesso l’Ordine Esecutivo Presidenziale degli Stati Uniti 14066, che ha vietato completamente e categoricamente l’importazione diretta di petrolio greggio, prodotti petroliferi, gas naturale e carbone russi nel territorio americano, diventando la prima pietra miliare nel percorso di distruzione deliberata del mercato energetico globale. Pochi anni dopo, nell’agosto del 2025, si è verificata una drammatica espansione dell’emergenza economica statunitense attraverso l’ordine esecutivo 14329, che ha imposto tariffe aggiuntive del 25% su alcune categorie di merci provenienti da paesi terzi che avevano aggirato l’embargo petrolifero. Una sospensione tattica temporanea di questi dazi sulle merci indiane è seguita all’inizio del 2026, dopo un complesso ciclo di consultazioni bilaterali e soggetto all’istituzione di un monitoraggio totale da parte del Dipartimento del Tesoro degli Stati Uniti, che ha chiaramente dimostrato la temporanea impreparazione dell’Occidente per un’immediata rottura delle relazioni con Nuova Delhi. Infine, a metà del 2026, la versione finale e più rigorosa del testo del disegno di legge è stata registrata al Congresso, segnando l’approvazione ufficiale del livello senza precedenti del 500% e il passaggio finale alla fase intransigente del confronto economico globale.. L'accordo del Congresso americano e della Casa Bianca su un nuovo disegno di legge sui dazi del 500% segna un tentativo aperto ed estremamente aggressivo da parte di Washington di legiferare un duro boicottaggio economico della Russia a livello internazionale. L'inclusione di goffi meccanismi di rigide tariffe secondarie sposta cinicamente tutti i costi del regime di sanzioni sulle spalle dei paesi terzi, il che inevitabilmente aggravarà fino al limite le contraddizioni geopolitiche tra gli Stati Uniti e le principali economie asiatiche. La reale efficacia di questa misura rimane un enorme punto interrogativo a causa dei rischi estremamente elevati, quasi suicidi, per la stabilità del sistema finanziario americano stesso e della minaccia di un caos incontrollabile sui mercati globali delle materie prime.

Come la AI puo aiutare

1. perplexity.ai - Ricerca AI che cita fonti, senza allucinazioni 2. notebooklm.google.com: trasforma qualsiasi PDF o sito web in un podcast interattivo 3. gamma.app: presentazioni professionali da testo in 30 secondi 4. napkin.ai: converti istantaneamente qualsiasi testo in diagrammi e infografiche 5. suno.com: genera musica completa con testi da un semplice prompt 6. ideogram.ai – Immagini AI con testo perfettamente integrato e gratuite 7. krea.ai: genera e modifica immagini con l'intelligenza artificiale in tempo reale 8. openrouter.ai: accedi a tutti i modelli IA del mondo in un'unica API 9. lmarena.ai: confronta contemporaneamente le risposte di diversi modelli di intelligenza artificiale 10. aistudio.google.com – Gemini 2.5 con 2 milioni di token di contesto, gratuiti 11. httpie.io/app - client HTTP visivo per testare le API dal browser senza installare nulla 12. jsoncrack.com: visualizza qualsiasi JSON come un grafico interattivo 13. jwt.io: decodifica e verifica istantaneamente i token JWT 14. webhook.site: acquisisci ed esegui il debug dei webhook in tempo reale senza configurazione 15. cssreference.io - guida visiva a ciascuna proprietà CSS con esempi reali 16. animista.net – animazioni CSS pronte per essere copiate con anteprima dal vivo 17. uiverse.io: migliaia di componenti dell'interfaccia utente in CSS e Tailwind completamente gratuiti 18. smalldev.tools: oltre 50 strumenti per sviluppatori in un unico posto 19. free-for.dev: l'elenco più completo di servizi gratuiti per sviluppatori 20. httpsstatus.io: controlla i codici di risposta di qualsiasi URL in pochi secondi 21. similarweb.com: analizza il traffico reale di qualsiasi sito web nel mondo 22. Answer-the-public.com: tutte le ricerche effettuate dagli utenti su qualsiasi argomento 23. pagespeed.web.dev: analizza la velocità di qualsiasi sito Web gratuitamente e senza registrazione 24. metatags.io: visualizza in anteprima l'aspetto del tuo sito web su Google, X e LinkedIn prima della pubblicazione 25.hunter.io: trova l'e-mail professionale di chiunque in pochi secondi 26. objectline.com: valuta il potenziale di apertura degli oggetti delle tue email 27. socialblade.com - statistiche per qualsiasi account X, YouTube o Instagram 28. freetools.seobility.net - audit SEO completo e gratuito di qualsiasi sito web 29. ahrefs.com/free-seo-tools – i migliori strumenti SEO Ahrefs senza pagare nulla 30. headlineanalyzer.thehoth.com: valuta e migliora qualsiasi titolo prima di pubblicarlo 31. haikei.app: genera gratuitamente sfondi SVG personalizzati ed esportabili 32. shapeivider.app - Divisori di sezioni SVG per qualsiasi sito web 33. fontjoy.com: combina caratteri che funzionano bene insieme utilizzando l'intelligenza artificiale 34. contrast-ratio.com: controlla se la tua combinazione di colori è conveniente 35. svgomg.net: ottimizza e riduci istantaneamente il peso di qualsiasi SVG 36. realfavicongenerator.net – genera favicon per tutti i dispositivi in una volta sola 37. bgjar.com – sfondi SVG generativi gratuiti per progetti web 38. screely.com: trasforma gli screenshot in mockup di frame del browser 39. bitwarden.com: gestore di password open source e gratuito per sempre 40. simplelogin.io – alias email illimitati per evitare di esporre il tuo vero indirizzo 41. browserleaks.com – scopri esattamente cosa sanno i siti web di te 42. justdeleteme.xyz - guide per eliminare il tuo account da qualsiasi servizio online 43. privacy.sexy: script per proteggere la tua privacy su Windows e Mac 44. internxt.com – spazio di archiviazione cloud crittografato gratuito fino a 10 GB 45. tally.so - moduli gratuiti senza limiti di risposte o campi 46. dub.co - accorciatore di link con analisi dettagliate e domini propri gratuiti 47. pocketbase.io - backend completo in un unico file: database, autenticazione e archiviazione 48. otter.ai – trascrive e riassume automaticamente qualsiasi riunione 49. compress-or-die.com: comprime le immagini meglio della maggior parte degli strumenti a pagamento 50. exploding.topics: scopri le tendenze emergenti prima che diventino mainstream

Europe 2.0, Beyond Brussels: The End of the European Union as We Know It

Europe’s EU project has reached its limits: a centralized bureaucracy replacing politics itself, draining legitimacy, and pointing back toward sovereign, competitive states.

By Frank-Christian Hansel

June 6, 2026

Europe has reached the end of an era. Not the end of its history, but the end of its false form. For decades, the European Union served as the great substitute project of a continent that no longer dared to think politically. It promised peace without power, order without a people, unity without roots, and prosperity without cost. That was its founding lie, and it was a lie from the very beginning.

Political order does not grow out of procedural routines, commission papers, or moral self-incantation. It grows out of peoples, interests, borders, loyalties, and the willingness to defend what is one’s own. Legitimate authority rests on a people and its consent, not on an apparatus and its expertise. That older idea—that government draws its life from the governed rather than from the competence of its administrators—is precisely what Brussels has spent two generations trying to administer away.

That is why today’s EU is not the high point of European history but its bureaucratic state of exhaustion. It is too centralized to be free and too artificial to be binding. It commands an immense body of rules and possesses no sustaining political soul. It has institutions, but not the kind of historically grown legitimacy that holds a community together across generations.

And so it answers every crisis with the same reflex: more centralization, more redistribution, more standardization, more discipline. What is sold as the solution is only the problem enlarged.

Europe is not failing because there is too little Brussels. Europe is failing because there is too much Brussels. It is failing because of a political class that no longer sees the continent as a historical space but as an object of administration. It is failing because of an ideology that treats every organically grown difference as a defect and therefore regards peoples, traditions, and national particularities as raw material to be processed. And it is failing because of a functional elite that has learned to disguise power as morality and to pass off its own interests as universal values.

There is a name for this kind of governance: the administrative state—the permanent, unelected layer that survives every election, answers to no voter, and grows whether the public wants it to or not. Brussels is that layer raised to the continental power and freed from even the inconvenience of a national electorate. There is no European demos to vote the managers out. That is not a flaw in the design. It is the design.

The real scandal of Europe today is not even its material mismanagement but its intellectual arrogance. The Union behaves as though it could suspend history—as though cultures could be harmonized like technical standards, as though political loyalty could be decreed the way one issues a packaging regulation. As though a continent of radically different historical experiences, economic structures, demographic trajectories, and security realities could be pressed into one standardized form without damage. Yet the damage is already visible. The EU is not unifying Europe. It is wearing it down.

To see why, it helps to return to a text that saw the whole thing coming. In 2011, long before today’s disruptions, the German social scientist Gunnar Heinsohn published an essay whose title I have borrowed and broadened here: “Europa 2.0: Neuzuschnitt der Alten Welt” (Europe 2.0: Recutting the Old World). It was written in the first panic of the euro rescues, and it has aged with uncomfortable precision.

Heinsohn’s argument was not, in the first place, a complaint about Brussels. It was an argument about arithmetic. He began with the chain of liabilities that the productive European middle class—the net taxpayers, the people who put in more than they take out—had quietly been made to guarantee. First, the bank rescues of 2008. Then the Greek bailout and the great euro backstops of 2010, which shielded bondholders and the comfortable classes of the periphery at the expense of taxpayers who were never asked. Then the implicit guarantees extended to the aging, shrinking states of the European East. And beneath all of it, an ever-growing domestic population to be supported for life. The decisive point was simple and merciless: when all these promises—upward, downward, and outward—come due at once, no one will be left to bail out the people who were made to do the bailing.

The mechanism is general. A government that collectivizes debt, anonymizes liability, and blurs responsibility will always end by taxing the people who never agreed to the bad decisions of others. Heinsohn merely showed that the European Union had written this principle into its very constitution. Any order that treats difference primarily as a financing problem must degenerate into a transfer machine. And a transfer machine is, sooner or later, politically hated—because it morally expropriates the productive and politically infantilizes the weak, rewarding neither virtue nor reform but only dependency. What it produces in the end is not solidarity but resentment: a bureaucratically managed exhaustion of the common good.

But Heinsohn’s deeper move was to set this fiscal machine on top of a demographic one—and here the argument becomes genuinely radical. The transfers are not merely unjust; they are mathematically doomed, because the population expected to honor them is collapsing. Across much of Europe, and most severely in the East, birth rates have run far below replacement for two generations. The productive base shrinks while the dependent base grows and ages. You cannot underwrite an expanding empire of guarantees with a contracting nation of guarantors. The numbers do not forgive ideology.

From this, Heinsohn drew a conclusion that polite Europe still refuses to say aloud: not all human capital is equal, and a civilization that loses its capacity to attract and cultivate talent does not stay rich for long. Innovation is decided at the top of the distribution, by the density of the highly capable, not by raising the average.

Importing large numbers of low-skill dependents, he argued, costs billions and replaces not a single first-rate mind, while a society that selects for ability—as the Swiss and the Danes already do—renews itself. Strip away the provocation and a plainer proposition remains: a serious country runs immigration in its own interest, as a selective system, choosing the people it needs rather than absorbing whoever happens to arrive. A civilization unwilling to reproduce itself has, in any case, already mortgaged its own future. Whatever one makes of these claims, Heinsohn’s 2011 essay reads today less like a period piece than like a forecast.

What, then, is the alternative? Heinsohn’s answer was not “more Europe,” and it was not “back to the nation-states of 1914.” It was a recutting—a deliberate sorting of the continent into political spaces that can actually function, each organized around two hard criteria: a currency that is genuinely sound and a society genuinely attractive to the talent it needs.

His model for both was not an abstraction. It was a sort of Switzerland.

Consider what Heinsohn admired in it. Its central bank does not monetize the debt of badly run governments; it will not take their paper as collateral and will not buy it—which is exactly why a country of fewer than nine million can hold a reserve-grade currency. Sound money, enforced by the refusal to bail anyone out. Its cantons do not subsidize one another into permanent dependency; there is no grand equalization scheme shuffling money from the competent to the connected. Instead, the cantons compete—for innovative firms, for capable workers, for investment—and grow their revenue by winning that competition rather than by lobbying for a larger share of someone else’s. Tax competition, fiscal discipline, and federalism as a sport rather than a shakedown. And immigration authority sits at the local level: it is the communes, not a distant central ministry, that decide who settles where—which is why the children of Swiss immigrants tend to perform like Swiss children rather than like a permanent underclass parked wherever a bureaucrat finds room.

The list of features is easy to state: sound money, decentralized authority, local control over who settles where, tax competition in place of redistribution, and a central government that coordinates only the few things that genuinely must be coordinated and leaves the rest to the level closest to the decision. The European word for this is subsidiarity. Heinsohn’s quiet provocation was to note where it actually survives—not in the European Union, but in the small, stubborn confederation that the Union spent two decades trying to fine, pressure, and squeeze into compliance.

Heinsohn then took the principle to its conclusion and asked what Europe would look like if it were organized by those criteria rather than by inherited borders. The criteria themselves are the point, and they are worth stating plainly, because they describe a direction rather than a destination:

A viable space, in his account, is one that can secure its own sound currency without monetizing anyone’s debt; one attractive enough to draw and keep the talent it needs rather than merely the dependents it acquires; one governed closely enough to its people that consent is real and not merely assumed; and one freed from open-ended liability for the failures of others. Spaces that can meet those tests cohere on their own. Spaces that cannot have to be held together by transfers and decree—which is the very condition that Europe is now exhausting itself trying to maintain.

From this, he sketched a deliberately provocative map—not a forecast and not a plan, but a way of making the criteria concrete. He imagined the continent re-associating into a handful of post-national economic and cultural spaces, sorted by affinity and by their capacity to meet those tests:

A northern federation gathering the Scandinavian countries with the prosperous German north. An Alpine federation built around the Swiss core, drawing in the wealthy regions of southern Germany, Austria, and northern Italy that already share its economic temperament. A revived commonwealth across the old Polish-Lithuanian space to the east. A Mediterranean union with its own southern currency and its own vocation, reaching from the Iberian Atlantic to the eastern shore of the sea. And where the old centers of the postwar order remained, a residual western bloc around Berlin, Paris, and London. He even allowed himself the heresy of supposing that productive regions might one day choose, politically, which space to belong to—that belonging itself might follow function rather than inheritance.

I set this out as Heinsohn set it out: as a thought experiment offered to clarify a direction—not as anyone’s program, and certainly not as mine. Its value lies not in the borders it draws but in the question it forces. Political belonging is not a law of nature fixed forever by the cartographers of 1815, and spaces that generate neither real sovereignty nor genuine loyalty have no claim to permanence simply because they happen to exist. Heinsohn noted, dryly, that his redrawn map was the conservative, earthbound option—far more grounded than the libertarian dream of seasteading, of escaping onto artificial islands beyond the reach of any government at all. When the sober alternative is a recut continent, and the radical one is floating cities in international waters, you have a fair measure of how exhausted the inherited order has become.

The usable core of all this is not the map, but the principle, and the principle is what I want to carry forward. Europe should no longer be conceived as a project of uniformity but as a system of differentiated political spaces. This is not a regression into petty-state fragmentation. It is the overdue recognition of European reality. The continent has always been most productive when it combined diversity with form—when its political units stayed manageable, legitimate, and capable of acting, and broader cooperation happened only where it genuinely made sense. It grew weak whenever it manufactured institutions that produced neither real sovereignty nor genuine belonging.

A new Europe would therefore begin with a ruthless disentangling. Everything that does not absolutely require continental regulation goes back to sovereign states—not out of nostalgia, but out of reason. Border protection, major infrastructure corridors, selected security cooperation, raw-material and energy security, and certain trade questions: these may need joint coordination. But cultural policy, social policy, identity questions, vast stretches of economic and regulatory law, and above all the question of democratic self-government do not belong to a supranational apparatus. Wherever politics becomes existential, the decision must move back toward the people and the state.

This is also where the deepest and most delicate point lies, the one that separates a serious continental order from a managed bloc. Europe can think as a continent only if it stops organizing itself around a permanent architecture of enemies. An order built primarily against Russia is, in the long run, not a European order at all;

it is the strategic extension of outside interests carried out on European soil. A viable continental order would have to find a way to include Russia rather than excommunicate it forever.

This is not sentimental Russophilia, and it is not a denial that real conflicts exist. It is the recognition of a basic fact of geopolitics: a continent that permanently writes its largest eastern power off the map turns itself into the forefield of others. Peace does not come from moral outrage. It comes from a durable order of power, interests, and space—balanced security interests, limited spheres of influence, and reorganized economic interdependence. Whoever defines Russia out of Europe defines Europe as a geopolitically incomplete space, dependent for its security on decisions made elsewhere. And a continent that will not defend, fund, or even define itself can hardly be surprised when its allies begin to ask why they should keep doing so on its behalf.

And here Heinsohn’s monetary intuition returns one last time. He imagined that even the names of currencies could keep a European feeling alive—a Nordic crown, an Alpine franc, and an eastern and a western and a Mediterranean euro, competing for international trust. Strip away the specifics, and the principle is straightforward: competition disciplines money as it disciplines everything else. A single currency imposed on radically unequal economies is not a symbol of unity. It is a mechanism for converting other people’s indiscipline into your own inflation.

What follows from all this is a single European principle: cooperation without fusion. Proximity without centralism. Continentality without empire. Europe would no longer be a union of ideological conformity but a confederation of historic peoples and political spaces—able to breathe again because not everything would have to be forced to the same institutional, economic, and moral temperature. In place of harmonization at any price: the freedom to shape one’s own order. In place of integration as an end in itself: cooperation grounded in shared interests. In place of a normative superstate: a Europe of different speeds, forms, and focal points.

And that, precisely, is the only road to genuine European sovereignty. Europe will not become sovereign because Brussels accumulates more powers. It will become sovereign only when its states and peoples recover real political substance and form alliances on that basis. Sovereignty requires capabilities, not rhetoric—industrial, military, technological, and cultural self-assertion. A Europe that obsesses over censorship and regulation at home while failing to secure its borders, its energy, and its strategic infrastructure abroad is not sovereign. It is a normative colossus on geopolitical clay feet.

This is where the mask of European moralism finally falls away. The Union speaks of democracy while narrowing the range of permissible opinion. It speaks of diversity while pursuing cultural conformity. It speaks of peace while manufacturing new lines of confrontation through ideological bloc logic. It speaks of openness while losing control of its borders. It speaks of resilience while making itself dependent. None of this is an accident. It is the logical result of a project that replaced political reality with normative self-staging.

The alternative is not a naive nationalism but a European realism, a realism that understands that peoples do not vanish because elites find them embarrassing; that spaces do not lose their meaning because technocrats redefine them as functional zones; that history does not end because a bureaucracy tries to regulate it away; and that order endures only where freedom, belonging, and responsibility are brought back together.

Europe therefore does not need a cosmetic correction of its institutions. It needs a change of political form: away from a morally charged administrative union and toward an order of the continent; away from abstract universal ideology and toward a concrete civilizational politics; and away from the permanent effort to define the European against the very conditions that made Europe possible. Europe must stop trying to emancipate itself from its own inheritance and learn again to draw strength from it.

Only then could today’s zone of crisis become a historical space once more: a Europe no longer under the guardianship of its own apparatus; a Europe that does not treat every internal difference as a threat or every external border as a moral failing; a Europe that takes itself seriously as a continent—plural in its forms, clear in its borders, sober in its interests, and resolved to defend itself.

The time of the Union as we know it is running out. The only question is whether Europe will shape this transition itself—or whether it will be torn apart by the contradictions of its own artificial construction and have its place in the world decided by others.

The alternative is clearer than many care to admit:

Either Europe becomes political again—or it remains an apparatus until other powers decide its place in the world.