Tag Archives: Ukraine

Israel is arming neo-Nazis in Ukraine

By Asa Winstanley
4 July 2018

Israeli arms are being sent to a heavily armed neo-Nazi militia in Ukraine, The Electronic Intifada has learned.

Azov Battalion online propaganda shows Israeli-licensed Tavor rifles in the fascist group’s hands, while Israeli human rights activists have protested arms sales to Ukraine on the basis that weapons might end up with anti-Semitic militias. Continue reading Israel is arming neo-Nazis in Ukraine

Political Persecutions in Eastern Europe to prepare War with Russia (and a note on Hungary, Trump and the refugees)

By Dimitris Konstantakopoulos

We have witnessed during the last two years the multiplication of cases of political repressions in various Eastern European countries, like Poland, where Mateusz Piscorski, leader of the party Smena is detained illegally already for two years, without any accusations formulated against him! But this is not the only authoritarian action of the Polish authorities, which, by the way have been condemned by UN Human Rights Committee and by the Polish Ombudsman (Rzecznik praw obywatelskich) for their actions. Among them the process against the Polish Communist party, the harassment against the trotskyte group “Power to the Councils”, a pro-Palestinian conference and scientific conferences about Karl Marx! To all that you may add the massive expulsion to the streets of impoverished tenants due to the re-privatization process. Continue reading Political Persecutions in Eastern Europe to prepare War with Russia (and a note on Hungary, Trump and the refugees)

Le phénomène Trump, la course vers la guerre et la crise de l’ UE

Le phénomène Trump, la course vers la guerre et la crise de l’ UE

Dimitri Konstantakopoulos,

Conférence Internationale sur le capitalisme financier et ses alternatives, Chisinau, 15-16 décembre 2017

Lire aussi
The danger of Nuclear War and the Political Paralysis of Europe, the European Left, Russia and China


The Dutch referendum is the latest in a chain of events which make now European Union look, more and more, like the Soviet Union during the last phase of its existence. Of course if you compare these two structures (EU and USSR) you will find a lot of differences. But in spite of those differences there is an astonishing “structural similarity” in the fucntioning of both structures and in their multinational character, which can probably explain why such huge and, seemingly so strong, structures may prove extremely vulnerable, under specific conditions.

Dutch voters spoke again, as they had spoken in June 2005, when they rejected, along with French voters, the proposed European Constitutional Treaty. The French and the Dutch referendums of 2005 have signified, already from that time, the political end of “euroliberalism”.

In 2005, no power in France, Holland or Europe wanted to receive the message of the voters. Now, we face maybe the probability that there will soon be no power in Brussels to receive the message, one way or another.

Europe is probably living the beginning of the end of the regime prevailing in the continent. As for the EU itself, it is facing a very real possibility of a chaotic crisis potentially leading to a “sudden death”.

We are not yet there, but we witness already an exponential increase of various instability factors and no serious leadership, both on national and Union levels, willing or able to address the enormous challenges this structure is facing.

By voting No, the Dutch voters rejected the Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement. It is too early to say what will be the practical consequences of their verdict. But the political one is already enormous and no European leader was able, until the time these lines were written, to comment in any comprehensive way the deafening “political signal” Dutch citizens emitted.

The voters have not rejected just an agreement. By the way it is also not serious to claim that they voted, the way they voted, just out of fear of refugees or terror. Dutch, Cypriot, French, Irish, Greek voters have, time and again, rejected the policies they propose to them, when they had any opportunity to do it. They did it long before the refugee and the terror crisis appeared and affected them. Of course both crises have played a role here, but at a maximum, they added to an already deep rejection by European citizens of the whole direction both their states and the Union have taken. European citizens feel much better than their supposed “leaders” the abyss into which their policies are leading them and they react to that.

Sometimes, European politicians blame exclusively the Union for what they are doing. But most of the Union decisions are taken with the consent of national governments. By attributing to Brussels policies they themselves have voted for, they pay a very bad service to the very idea of any European integration. And the opposite is also true. By focusing rightly but exclusively to the policies of Brussels, we tend to forget other important dimensions of European problems, like what to do in order to face the tremendous power of multinational corporations and international Finance, or the question of European independence.

By refusing the agreement with Ukraine, Dutch voters also refused the “blind” policy of continuous and unlimited “extension” of the Union. Without serious development and integration help, this enlargement policy is not of any help to the new countries. But it is used to destroy the social welfare state in the “old” ones! And also to deny to the Union the means of its independence (“new Europe” states are essentially American neo-protectorates, at least regarding their foreign and defence policies) and make it ungovernable, thus more governable by obscure financial and geopolitical forces.

Dutch citizens refused also, by their vote, indirectly still clearly, the policy towards Russia that Neoconservatives and NATO have imposed on both European governments and the Union, all of them having proved more than obedient to their desiderata, in the most irresponsible way.

The more general message emitted time and again by Cypriot voters (2004), French and Dutch voters (2005), Irish voters (2007), Greek voters (2015) is that Europeans reject the policies of both their “local”, national elites and governments and the European Union bodies which are deciding and applying them. Without bothering excessively to take into account what people thinks of them and sometimes even to explain their policies.

What European citizens, in increasing numbers, feel the need to do, in every occasion they have, is to try to claim back, at least some of the power of their national states and the Union, hijacked by multinational corporations, Finance, extremist geopolitical forces, hidden behind both national elites, Brussels bureaucracy or ECB.

As for a possible collapse of the European Union, it is good news for all those who got exasperated with European policies. Still they should take care. The collapse of a structure you don’t like is, sometimes, the necessary condition to replace it with a better order, especially if this structure is not “reformable”. Under some conditions such a collapse cannot be avoided. Still, as the Soviet example showed too well to all the world, the disappearance of a structure you don’t like can also lead to a much worse situation. In such crises, the end result is dependent upon the strategic capacities and the possible dependence of the forces involved.



By Dimitris Konstantakopoulos
The other day, while reading an article published in the major German newspaper FAZ, I could not believe my eyes. It was a direct threat against the Chancellor of Austria! More or less the article was telling him to mind his country not becoming Greece, suggesting to him to cut social expenses. His crime was that he showed some sympathy for Greece, which suffered during and because of its “rescue”, an unprecedented economic, social and national disaster, losing 27% of its GDP, which is more than the material losses of France or Germany during the 1st World War.

Inevitably my mind made automatically the connection with Anschluss, the annexation of Austria to the German Reich before the war. You see, events run sometimes faster than the ability of mind and soul to analyze and ‘metabolize’ them!

The European policy of Berlin is not however the only example of Germany’s drastic shift, of the radical differentiation of the basic parameters, which determined Germany’s policy for the whole post war period. A year ago the editor of its biggest financial newspaper Handelsblatt Gabor Steingart wrote an article pointing out the similarities of the anti-Russian tone of the articles published by the German mass media on Ukraine and of those published in August 1914, when Kaiser was starting the 1st World War.

Historic experience shows that massive attacks by the mass media towards countries are nothing less than the necessary preparation of the public opinion for war. The vulgar and almost sadistic attack by the main German press against Greece in 2009-10 preceded the “markets” attack against Athens. The “economic war” against Greece followed suit, by a coalition of Finance Capital, Berlin and EU institutions and led and justified the subjection of our country to the Troika of the Creditors on May 2010. The media’s attacks against Serbia, Iraq and Libya were nothing else than the preparation of public opinion for the bombarding and the destruction of these states. The anti – Russian campaign of the western European mass media is the preparation of a big war against Russia, cold or maybe hot. The indications of “friendship” towards Moscow of a portion of the German establishment, risk to have finally no better future than the Ribbentrop –Molotov friendship, which made simply easier the attack against USSR in 1941. Of course, campaigns of the press and of the television use real events or arguments, particles of truth, but only to give credibility to the lies.

Germany, West and Russia

The existence of the Russian atomic arsenal makes very difficult (but not completely impossible) a direct military conflict between West and Moscow. However, we see already the western encouragement of the civil conflict in Ukraine and an economic war with use of sanctions and with the aim, finally, to cut off Europe from Russian energy. This dual “strategy”, aims both at the containement of Russia and to overthrowing Putin, as well as to the destruction of any Euro-Russian cooperation, which is the conditio sine qua non of European independence.

One would normally expect Berlin to oppose such a course. But even if we assume it wants to do so, it doesn’t seem that it can. Berlin does not possess an integrated view of the international situation, capable of opposing the “vision” and the determination of the extremist “neoliberal core” in the international establishment, which was expressed so clearly in the Ukrainian crisis by Mrs. Victoria Nuland (“fuck the EU”), while it seems too dependent on these forces.

Germany’s awakening

Personally, I always considered as completely unfounded the expectation of the postwar European, Russian and American elites that Germany would accept to remain forever divided, essentially under some form of occupation, a second class power, with only mission to apologize for its past. Not only was such an expectation unfounded, it was also not in the best interests of Europe as a whole – that is including Russia.

Germany, with its educated and disciplined human resources, its technological achievements, its sensitivity to issues concerning the protection of nature and peace, would be necessary for the rescue of the biggest social conquest of European civilization, namely the welfare state, which has allowed until now Europeans to live in circumstances of relative security and dignity. Germany can still, at least in theory, play a leading role in defending this very important achievement from the onslaught of “globalization”, which is nothing else than the attempt a planetary dictatorship of Money. Germany may also contribute to a Europe that, in cooperation with Russia, it can prevent the tendency to push humanity to chaos, war and ecological disaster.

The unprecedented leveling of a number of important Arab states, the return of the specter of war over Europe, the extent of Greek socio-economic disaster, the refusal to take any measures to tackle the ecological threat, reveal to any serious observer the severity of the risks facing mankind.

Germany could theoretically play an important positive role in all these matters. No European could oppose this. But, if it is absolutely necessary to hope and dream and act for the Good, it is also necessary not to have illusions and to dare compare Utopia and Reality, drawing the necessary conclusions. Unfortunately, the ruling political elites in Berlin have made the opposite choices, without meeting so far any significant resistance from the German establishment and the German people.

Many in Europe hoped for the regeneration of the continent when Schröder, in close collaboration with Chirac, Villepin and Putin opposed the US-British invasion of Iraq. Unfortunately, this act of resistance was left without a follow-up, at least by Berlin and Paris. The same leaders, who undertook it, they got so scared of their own courage at a moment, that they ended up apologizing for long after to Washington. The forces of transatlantic dependence returned with a vengeance, in an unprecedented manner, together with international financial capital, the continent’s political elites over the last decade.

Economy and geopolitics

This proved something deeper, the organic unity of the neoliberals’ and the newconservatives’ projects in economic and in geopolitics. That is why politicians are not opposed to neo-liberal plans of deep deconstruction of the social State and democracy, because they cannot effectively oppose the oncoming war.
At least theoretically, there are two roads ahead for Germany. The awakening of German nationalism may be the starting point of an effort to lead the resistance to globalization and war. Instead of trying to subdue the other European people in conjunction with the markets, Germany can lead the resistance against them. Instead of rallying to, or at least not opposing to the neoconservatives’ war against Russia and the Arabs, it could counter them, thus championing Europe’s autonomous role. This would be a splendid victory for a new Germany. Such an option would constitute a historic victory in the best traditions of the German Spirit against the “counter-powers”, to use the terminology of Nietzsche, which persecute this European nation, unique among the major, historic nations of Europe, to failed accomplish a victorious revolution in its history.

Faust’s ghost

But Merkel and Schäuble, assisted in a critical manner by Gabriel, chose another road. In order to “discipline” the Eurozone, Berlin concluded a Faustian alliance with the most extreme forces of global Money, organized around the most extremist neoliberals (and passively tolerating the most extremist forces of the international establishment, the “neoconservatives “).

Allowing the “markets” to attack Greece, a Eurozone country, in 2009-10, armed with the debt and the threat of “bankruptcy” and bringing the IMF into the Eurozone, Berlin acquired the political-economic weapon that it was lacking and also the convincing “ideological” guise (the debt must be paid!) to “discipline” and dominate Europe – or so it thought!

Symbolic of this “immoral” alliance is the appointment of a former Goldman Sachs banker as a President of the ECB’s, the economic supra-Prime Minister of Europe, and the solemn entrance of the IMF in the governance of the Eurozone.

For their part, the “markets”, the major global banks and other financial institutions, organized around the political-ideological core of neoliberals, acquired, through their alliance with Berlin, the political, economic and ‘institutional’ (through the EU ) means to intervene directly in Europe. ‘Not only they did not record losses due to the great crisis of 2008, which they caused, but they made profits, which have to be paid by the people of Europe by increasing sovereign and private debt. They turned the financial sector crisis into a EU crisis and fueled political conflict between the European people.

Faust is a tragic person. Insisting on the roads he took, captive inevitably to its allies, who do not want to see Germany as a leading power, (allies who have a global strategy and “vision”, contrary to the dominant, very “provincial” and historically delayed version of German nationalism), Germany risks paying in the end a terrible price, comparable to that paid twice in its history. The possible outcome of all this was depicted with perspicacity of Homers’s Cassandra by Günter Grass, in the last two poems he wrote.

Always hoping for a timely change in Berlin, the nations of Southern Europe (including France), the Russians and all the good intentioned citizens of the world do not have many options if they want to survive and avoid the worst. In this respect the example of Chamberlain, Daladier and Molotov, but also of modern Greece, is instructive, proving that only a resolute resistance to the above-mentioned plans is perhaps the only way to modify them. This game, so decisive for the future of humanity, as well as the various lesser games in Europe, Ukraine and the Middle East will be won in the end only by whoever has a comprehensive and global strategy.

(I dedicate this article to Hayo, my great German friend, a democrat, a friend of Greece and fighter for humane architecture).

July 23, 2015
Published by the ANA-MPA news agency

Translated from the Greek by Stathis Habibis


Speech to the “Sofia Club” conference, Sofia, Bulgaria, April 25

By Dimitris Konstantakopoulos

I want to thank very much the organizers of this conference for their kind invitation and for their initiative for which we are in great need.

Human history is not a linear process, it is usually a non-linear, “turbulent” process. Sometimes it can also take the form of a chaotic process. There are places and times of high “density”, of “concentration” of historical dynamics. There are points, in space and time, where things take one or another path and we are unable to predict what path they will take through deterministic models. Such “choices” may have huge consequences, sometimes determining even what will happen decades ahead.

We are living through such “critical phases”, able to determine in decisive way the future of Europe in two places in the continent: Ukraine and Greece.

In Ukraine, we are flirting now, unfortunately, even with the possibility of a new world war and with a major conflict between western powers and Russia, provoked by the neoconservatives. The crisis and conflict in Ukraine will determine heavily the evolution of the situation in the world, it will shape relations between European Union countries and Russia and the role of Europe in the world.

If Ukraine will be decisive for the evolution of the “external” parameters of European Union and for determining its role in the world, Greece will be decisive for the shaping of the internal structure of EU.

Ukraine is used by the most radical neoconservatives to attack Russia and, indirectly, any idea of European autonomy, such an autonomy requiring a strong link with Moscow (and also the second phase of the dismembering and destruction of USSR, a process begun but not finished in 1991). This is happening for a very simple reason which has very little to do with Putin’s “regime” or any kind of “democracy” in Ukraine – western rhetoric about Ukraine is simply ridiculous for any informed person.

The reason is that Russia with, among others, its nuclear arsenal and its tradition of independent world policy remains the strongest state, the strongest point of concentration of “hard” and “semi-hard” power, able to defy the control of the whole planet by a “totalitarian empire of globalization”, this is an alliance of the international financial capital and the US military-industrial complex. And, as we know from the Jeremia and Wolfovitch reports, the nearly official goal of US “proactive” policy, after the “end” of the cold war (if it really ended) is to deter any kind of alliance between any two poles of the international system (for instance Westen Europe and Russia, or Russia and China), which would be able to defy the monopoly of US power over the planet. An advanced Western Europe-Russia partnership would be a heavy blow to the idea of an “American 21st Century” and it would represent a potential threat to the nearly unseen, still extremely powerful alliance of Finance, ruling the world, or wishing so.

If Ukraine is used by neoconservatives to shape relations in Eurasia and attack Russia, before attacking China, Greece is used by neoliberals to reshape drastically not only the economic and social situation in Europe, by literally destroying the social welfare system, but, indeed, to proceed to “regime change”. They are destroying any element of democratic rule. They are not doing this directly, at least for the time being. They keep intact the external form of “democracy” and popular sovereignty, but they insist on refusing all essential content to it. After May 2010, the representatives of the people do not decide practically anything, they are there to legalise the troika decisions, that is an alliance of European unelected institutions (European Bank and Commission) and the IMF, representing the alliance of “markets” (world finance) and German elites, followed by other European elites.

Some people in the left think still in terms of descriptions of capitalism by Marx, Smith or Ricardo, of spontaneous crises by a total of “independent” actors. Such models were based exclusively on the model of european capitalism of 18th and 19th centuries. We are very far in reality today from such descriptions, which were an abstraction even at the time they were made. Behind the supposed “automatism” of markets and the chaotic way politicians are deciding, there are those whom we can rightly call the “Leninists of the Markets”. Capitalism in our days is not capitalism which was described by Marx or by Smith or by Ricardo, it’s a quite directed system, even if this is not done way central planning or the political control of the Soviet Union was applied. To combat our enemy we have to name it, write Zean Ziegler in the last of his books. And I agree completely with him to name the financial capital as the architect and the strategist of the new way towards a totalitarian society.

The Greek experiment

But let me be more specific about what is happening in Greece. You remember well that in the fall of 2008 we had a big banking crisis. Banks were saved by the States with money of the States and without essentially nationalizing them. The banking crisis was thus transformed into a sovereign debt crisis. In the same time Greece was used to transform the crisis of the unregulated financial system into a crisis between European peoples. At the end of 2009, western, especially German press, begun a hate campaign against Greece based on half truths and half lies, really a nouveauté for post war Europe. No country of the EU has been attacked in this way. This slander campaign against Greece, it coincides, this is why I am speaking about planned, well directed and not spontaneous processes, with the appearance in the international press of the acronym PIGS. They were describing the countries of southern Europe as pigs. It was very clear what they wanted to do. So we had a hate campaign against Greece in German press, especially and also in european press in a lesser extent, which reminds us of the campaign against Serbia before the war and the campaign against Iraq, also before the invasion, or against Libya, and so on and so forth. It’s a kind of communication bombing before the real financial attack, much in the way you bomb a rival before you attack him. We are in front of a new kind of war in Europe, an economic war. It had been applied sometimes in the Third World, but not in Europe these latest years.

At the end of 2009 and the beginning of 2010, Greece has become the object of a coordinated attack by the “Markets”, that is by the big international banks and funds, acting in cooperation with the rating agencies and by the press. I should remind you that just before the crisis Greece was considered by the rating agencies as an optimal investment, before it was practically announced as bankrupt. Of course this attack could be more difficult to succeed if we did not have in Greece a government headed by George Papandreou, a politician in better terms with George Soros and with Rothschilds, than with his own people, and who was able to use the great prestige in Greece of the name Papandreou. In a period of some months, the country was practically insolvent and pushed to ask the help of the European Union, the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank. This is the famous “Troika”. Which is as a matter of fact an alliance of international finance and German leadership, followed by other European elites. It’s a kind of Faust alliance, so to say, between Berlin and Goldman Sachs.

So they said that they have to help Greece overcome its numerous problems. Now, in order to avoid a very detailed discussion on this, I will give you some numbers. As a result of this help by Europeans and the IMF, the GDP of Greece is now 27% less that it was in 2010. This is more than the losses of France or Germany during the first World War. This is comparable to what has happened during the last three-four years of the Weimar Republic or during the Great Depression in the USA. The unemployment has skyrocketed. Two out of three young Greeks are unemployed. And those who are employed, they are often under terms oscillating between slavery and labour. The welfare system of Greece, the system of health and pensions was all but destroyed.

The interesting thing is that all this has happened supposedly in order to solve the problem of competitiveness of Greek economy, as well as the debt and budget deficit. As a result of the program applied debt has increased from 110% of the GDP to 180% of the GDP, which means, by the way, it will never be paid. As for the Greek exports except oil products they have fallen! We had a huge experiment and we have seen that there is no way, there is no even economic, “competitiveness” sense, in transforming southern and eastern Europe into third world. There are already other competitors. China or Bangladesh or Gabon will always be cheaper than Europe. So, that does not make sense.

But this is not only an economic problem. The destruction of Greek economy and society is not only an economic-social choise, it is also a project of regime change based on the destruction of Greek economy and society. The kind of agreements signed between Greece and Troika were a nouveauté also in terms not of European history but also of history of colonialism. They have literally transformed Greece into a debt colony. They have rewritten Greek constitution waving all clauses of national sovereignty. In 2011, I had made a visit in Cuba and was discussing with a known Cuban journalist who told me he was very much surprised by what the Luxembourgian vice president of the government had told them during a visit to Cuba. They told them, “listen it’s not true that we will take Acropolis from the Greeks, but it’s not very far from what we will really do. We are going to control everything, the property included”.

For every dose of financing Greece has received, it had to give a part of the State property, a part of its sovereignty, even a part of the private property through excessive, enormous taxation. So it was a program of transforming the country into what we may call a “debt colony”, but a continuously destroyed, not stabilized “debt colony”.

Democracy has continued to be the official form of government, but Greek governments and European “partners”-colonialists made everything possible to deny the Greek people the right to express their opposition to this programme. They have practically forbidden the demonstrations. Because we had big demonstrations, half a million, one million people in Athens, but they were oppressed by the Police which made the centre of Athens a kind of gas chamber so people, next time, were not able to demonstrate their opposition to the massacre of democracy and social rights.

Kafka in action

I cannot prove it, but I do believe that there was also a programme of psychological warfare. I mean the communication policy applied inside Greece was trying to persuade Greeks first of all that their country is already destroyed, they can do nothing. And second, that they are guilty for it. This combination of mourning and guilty is defined by psychiatrists as depression. And when you are depressed, you are committing suicide. We have an explosion of suicides. You don’t revolt. You revolt when you hope for something different and you revolt when you have a sense of justice. If you feel guilty that you have created the situation, then you don’t revolt.

So, this was an interesting experiment to smash the capacity of the Greek people to resist, its confidence to itself, its confidence to its own nation-state, its democracy. To destroy any psychological security to the population, to return Greeks to a situation similar to what Germans lived in 1945, French in 1940, Soviets in 1991. That is to destroy the psychological foundations of Greek bourgeois parliamentary democracy.

You have to crash people’s belief to themselves, to their capacity to rule their country or influence its policies, otherwise whatever anti-democratic measures you may take, they will fail in the first try. And I think this moral, psychological aspect of the programme applied to Greece, which reminds a little bit of the atmosphere described by Kafka, is of particular importance, because it is also confirming that here we have a systematic attack against social conquests and also against democracy, bourgeois democracy, as we have known it after the second World War in Europe. In spite of the fact that we hear a lot of things about automatism, or spontaneism of the markets, you see that this market attack on Greece was continuing unabated until May 2010 but at the same time financial markets were not attacking the other peripheral countries like Italy, Portugal, Spain, in spite of their quite similar to the Greek situations. When Greece signed finally, the next day they begun the attack against the other peripheral countries. I had the impression that we have in front of us a kind of hidden financial Guderian who is attacking one country after the other. And I think this is a deliberate plan to isolate the victims of this attack. I mean, ok Greeks will be destroyed, the others will see what happened, they will obey. So we have 8% of drop of Italian GDP, which is very big, but you cannot compare it with 27% of Greece. This is planned I believe to make very difficult to make an alliance between various European nations against the markets. Such an alliance is necessary to confront this enormous “counterrevolution” project, which wants, in the long run to refuse even the results of Rennaissance and Enlightment and, for sure, the results of the popular victory over Nazism and Hitler.

So, now, this process in Greece, is very similar as I told you to what has happened in the Weimar Republic between 1929 and 1933. Germany was under the external pressure of the enormous war reparations, as Greece is trying to pay an enormous debt, which is unable to serve. Germany, at this time, was following under chancellor Bruning, exactly the same policy that was imposed to Greeceby the troika. As in Weimar Germany, such policies lead also modern Greece to the collapse of its political system. SYRIZA is the product of the fact that the old parties have nearly collapsed and somebody has to rule the country and of the fact that it posed as a candidate to stop the destruction of the country.

SYRIZA and its fundamental contradictions

But SYRIZA suffers from a fundamental contradiction. It promised to solve the problem throught a classic left socialdemocratic policy and throught a tough negotiation with the creditors, avoiding in fact a complete clash with them. But for socialdemocracy to exist you need to have a dividend to provide to society. Hunger cannot be the foundation of any social democracy. SYRIZA has also proclaimed its confidence that it could somehow solve the problem with harsh negotiations with the creditors. I am not sure, personally, that this is possible. I would prefer such a compromise, if it yields a perspective to the country, but not a capitulation leading to very bad consequences.

Because, as a matter of fact, up to now, some kind of peace and democracy has been preserved in Greece, because there was a big hope in SYRIZA. If the social strata which are destroyed don’t find a possibility to change a situation throughout elections and throughout normal political process, then everything will be possible, we could very well find ourselves to a situation of potential civil war, even if of “low intensity”. At least this is one of the possibilities

The problem of SYRIZA is that it adopted, in its way to power, the most radical slogans of the opposition developed by society (and not from inside the party) against the loan agreements and MOU between the troika and the Greek governments. But it has not been able or willing to understand the deeper logic and the consequences of an analysis which sees in the Greek program not only a program of deep economic and social anti-reform, but a program of “hijacking” of the nation-state and destruction of its democratic, social and national functions. Not to speak about the huge geopolitical implications of te program. The SYRIZA leadership continues to see the program as a mistake, rather than the logical development of European euroliberalist system and also it has still completely unfounded and extremely dangerous illusions about the help that US-Israel axis could provide to Greece against Germany. SYRIZA is making a radical critique of the policy followed but it wants to solve it inside the context of the system that produces this policy. In the same time, other forces, inside or outside SYRIZA which are using a more radical terminology, they are also not willing or able to prepare the Greek people and themselves for the risky, difficult path of a clash with creditors, which may be unavoidable to save Greek nation-state, society and democracy.

The outcome of the Greek crisis will have a decisive impact on the character of the European Union. So, as a matter of fact, what the European dominant elites and the financial capital are trying to do, by invoking the necessity to pay the debt as it is, it is to establish the right to govern the government by the Troika. They are not against having elections and nominally Greek government ruling the country, as far as they follow exactly what they are saying. So, it’s an experiment on the internal governance of the European Union. If this will pass in Greece, sooner or later it will be applied to first to southern and eastern countries, member states, and even , I think, at some future perspective, to more central ones. If there is a really a financial totalitarianism in Europe, ready for the final war against societies, then a defeat of Greece may have analoguous consequences to the whole continent with those provoked by the defeat of democratic Spain in 1939.

As the situation stands now, European Union has two choices. The one is to evolve into a totalitarian structure, which somehow is implied in the clauses of the Maastricht treaty, but it is opposite to the ideology of the European Union, to the way that this Union was “sold” to the public. Or a second possibility will be for EU to destroy itself in a chaotic process, letting many small countries, which will be in economic war between themselves to attract some part of a demand, which is shrinking and in the same time they will be unable to resist the pressure of international finance and, probably, of US hegemony.

Up to now, we have essentially in Europe resistance to the totalitarian project. We don’t have really, a visible alternative. Essentially two ideas have been proposed in Europe, the one is to go back to Keynesian politics, that is to make Germany recycle its surpluses. And with that goes a lot of claims, which essentially, they don’t have a political, but a trade union character. We are all demanding an end to austerity, better salaries, bigger social expenditure, we are not really proposing a different model. And the second idea is coming from people who say, anyway, we don’t like the European Union let’s destroy it but sometimes they don’t describe very well the situation in which we will be found, if the European Union is destroyed. For instance, many people were critical of the Soviet Union, but they were not satisfied when the Soviet Union was destroyed. So, it’s important to make a critique of existing structures but it is also important to see where you go from the point you are and to develop strategies and political instruments able to push Europe or some of its states to a third direction .

So, I believe, a club like ours, and maybe other initiatives we are trying to form, have to begin the elaboration of more precise projects and ideas about what we would like to replace the existing European Union. On the level of the treaties, on the level of the economic mechanisms, we have to open this discussion, to put the questions. Can we have for instance a democratic Europe, which will be completely open in the globalisation? Can we go to some form of Keynesianism without some form of protectionism? Do we have to forbid derivatives and other financial products? Or to try to control the financial influence into all the political, economic and social institutions of the Union? Because, in the European Union everywhere you find people of Goldman Sachs. And so, we have a confusion, because, instead of demonstrating only in Brussels and Berlin, which by the way we don’t do it so often, we should probably go also to their offices in New York. It is well documented, we have lists of people, Prime ministers of Greece or Italy, even the President himself of European Central Bank and very many other people are men of the Goldman Sachs. The firm that is controlling the financial situation of European banks and has access to all their secrets, is itself controlled by Goldman Sachs.

We have to begin saying those things, because we are afraid to speak, and second we have to propose institutional so to say barriers, to their influence into European Affairs.

And also, we have to cooperate between ourselves, because our enemy is regional and international and we are making unfortunately very local, very national policy, everyone on his own agenda. In the same time we have a monster in front of us and we are unable to coordinate our actions.

By the way I would like to note my belief that we are in the midst of a transition, since 1991, from an American Empire to an Empire of Finance. Which is an ally of America but it is also using America. It is a phenomenon similar to the transition from the British to the American Empire.