The Rabidly Hypocritical EU

Eric Zuesse

Image source.

Unlike America under Donald Trump, who is proudly psychopathic and went so far as to blurt out that his followers would accept his leadership even if he were to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, the European Union is so rabidly hypocritical (Trump would probably call it “politically correct”) that its leaders routinely moralize about ‘human rights and democracy’ even while their governments indiscriminately rob and slaughter people in foreign lands (as will be documented here).

EU leaders assist U.S.-led atrocities while using prettier language to describe their alleged motivation for these policies. Though the U.S. Government also occasionally employs such verbal sucker-punches (insincere or “politically correct” rhetoric), such moralizing is now the exception for the U.S. Government, and is no longer (as it had been under the immediately prior U.S. President, Barack Obama) the routine American practice — very much like the EU’s was, and still remains: such ‘idealistic’ hypocrisy.

But even Obama wasn’t as hypocritical as EU leaders still are. The biggest difference between the U.S. and the EU is that, whereas even under America’s Nobel-Peace-Prize-winning (and continuing to be predominantly sanctified) President Obama (the invader of Libya, Syria, Yemen, and more), America’s head-of-state repeatedly said that America is “the one indispensable nation” — meaning that all other nations are “dispensable.”

By contrast, there is no EU leader, and not even any European head-of-state, who says, in the modern era, anything of the sort. Adolf Hitler infamously did it when reasserting “Deutschland über alles!” (i.e, that Germany is the one indispensable nation). But modern Europe’s leaders know better than to copy such rhetoric. (Trump’s version, of course, is “America first,” but this can mean many different things, and not only mean that “America is the one indispensable nation.” Obama’s version was far less ambiguous than Trump’s is, because Obama’s clearly means that every other nation is “dispensable,” and that only America is not. And, yet, still, Europe’s leaders accepted it — they accepted that their nations were and are “dispensable.” After all: they are vassals.)

America’s leaders are simply more honest about their psychopathy than modern Europe’s are. In fact, ever since at least the time of Ronald Reagan’s Presidency, “Greed is good” has been America’s unofficial, but clearly dominant, political philosophy — virtually the official American philosophy. How many European nations today publicly and proudly assert anything like that? Do any?

A recent example of the EU’s hyper-hypocrisy was headlined at the far-right UAWire Ukrainian news-site on March 31st, “EU urges Russia to stop attacks on Crimean Tatars”, which reported that:

The EU decisively condemns the arrest of 23 Crimean Tatars in police raids by the Russian occupation authorities in Crimea on 27 and 28 March, said EU Spokesperson for EU Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Maja Kocijancic in a statement.

“A court in the Crimean peninsula, illegally annexed from Ukraine by Russia, has ruled that all 23 Crimean Tatars detained on 27 March and 28 March will be held in pre-trial detention until 15 May. They are accused of belonging to the organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir, which is banned in Russia but not in Ukraine. The European Union does not recognise the enforcement of Russian legislation in Crimea and Sevastopol and expects all illegally detained Ukrainians to be released without delay,” Kocijancic stated.

“The recent detentions, as well as the prior searches of their private property, constitute the latest targeting of Crimean Tatars, human rights defenders, and people who have spoken out peacefully against the illegal annexation by Russia of the Crimean peninsula,” the EU spokesperson stressed. …

Here is what Wikipedia says about that banned-by-Russia group:

Hizb ut-Tahrir (Arabic: حزب التحرير) (Translation: Party of Liberation) is an international, pan-Islamist political organisation, which describes its ideology as Islam, and its aim as the re-establishment of the Islamic Khilafah (Caliphate) to resume the Islamic way of life in the Muslim world. The caliphate would unite the Muslim community (Ummah)[4] upon their Islamic creed and implement the Shariah, so as to then carry the proselytising of Islam to the rest of the world.[5] …

Hizb ut-Tahrir has been banned in countries such as Germany, Russia, China, Egypt, Turkey,[14] and all Arab countries except Lebanon, Yemen, and the UAE.[15][16] In July 2017, the Indonesian government formally revoked Hizbut ut-Tahrir’s charter, citing incompatibility with government regulations on extremism and national ideology.[17] …

They declare the necessity of jihad so that Da’wah will be carried “to all mankind” and will “bring them into the Khilafah state,” and the importance of declaring “Jihad against the Kuffar without any lenience or hesitation;” (Ummah’s Charter),[97][117] as well as the need to fight unbelievers who refuse to be ruled by Islam, even if they pay tribute (The Islamic Personality).[97][118]

Do Europeans really want people such as this to be increasing in the EU?

The Ukrainian regime that Obama had installed in February 2014 thinks it’s fine, but do Europeans, really? Obama had fooled Russia’s Government, at least until his 2012 re-election, to think that he wasn’t aiming like all his predecessors since at least the time of Reagan were aiming — for the U.S. Government ultimately to conquer and absorb Russia into the steadily growing U.S. empire — but after the bloody U.S. coup right on Russia’s doorstep in Ukraine in 2014, the EU has been clearly the U.S. regime’s vassal in this conquer-Russia enterprise — participating in it, though reluctantly.

The EU’s leadership has consistently been working in secret to assist jihadists — mass-murderers and terrorists — whenever jihadists are fighting in the U.S.-led international war against Russia and against any nation whose leadership (such as Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Viktor Yanukovych, and Nicolas Maduro) are either allied with or even just friendly toward Russia. Syria, and its President, Bashar al-Assad, constitute one particular example of this EU hypocrisy.

Here are examples of this U.S.-EU support for jihadists that are trying to overthrow a Russia-friendly government:

On 10 December 2012, AFP bannered “Jihadists seize key north Syria army base”, and reported that, “Jihadists led by the radical Al-Nusra Front seized a strategic army base in the northern Syrian province of Aleppo on Monday, in a fresh setback for President Bashar al-Assad’s regime. … On the political front, the EU gave a vital boost to the newly-formed Syrian opposition coalition, describing it as the ‘legitimate representatives’ of the Syrian people following talks in Brussels with its leader Ahmed Moaz al-Khatib.”

On that very same day, December 10th, Britain’s Telegraph headlined and sub-headed Syrian rebels defy US and pledge allegiance to jihadi group: Rebel groups across Syria are defying the United States by pledging their allegiance to a group that Washington will designate today a terrorist organization for its alleged links to al-Qaeda.” That report opened: “A total of 29 opposition groups, including fighting ‘brigades’ and civilian committees, have signed a petition calling for mass demonstrations in support of Jabhat al-Nusra, an Islamist group which the White House believes is an offshoot of al-Qaeda in Iraq.” So: no one could reasonably doubt that America’s alleged ‘rebels’ in Syria were, in fact, loyal to al-Nusra. Yet, the EU and U.S. continued supporting them.

Also on that same day, Bill Roggio at Long War Journal bannered, “Al Nusrah Front, foreign jihadists seize key Syrian base in Aleppo”, and he reported that, “The Syrian government has warned that rebels may also use chemical weapons after the Al Nusrah Front took control of a chlorine factory in Aleppo last week. Islamists hold sway over new rebel military command.” So: it was already clear, even then, that the ‘rebels’ were interested in perpetrating against civilians a chemical-weapons attack that their supporters in the U.S. and EU could then blame against Syria’s Government as being an alleged reason to invade Syria by their own forces in order to ‘protect the Syrian people and establish democracy and human rights there’, or similar lies.

The next day, December 11th, Roggio reported that “The Al Nusrah Front has by far taken the lead among the jihadist groups in executing suicide and other complex attacks against the Syrian military. The terror group is known to conduct joint operations with other Syrian jihadist organizations.”

And, on the very next day, December 12th, Roggio headlined “Syrian National Coalition urges US to drop Al Nusrah terrorism designation”. Anyone who, after this, didn’t know that the U.S. and EU were supporting jihadists to take control over Syria, was very deceived, because the truth was now known, and was then being subsequently hidden from the public, by almost all of the subsequent ‘news’-reporting. But there were a few exceptions:

On 26 January 2013, Roggio reported that,

The Al Nusrah Front has now claimed credit for 46 of the 55 suicide attacks that have taken place in Syria since December 2011, according to a tally of the operations by The Long War Journal (note that multiple suicide bombers deployed in a single operaton are counted as part of a single attack).

Al Nusrah spearheads military assaults

Al Nusrah has also served as the vanguard for jihadist forces in the major attacks on Syrian military bases. In concert with allied jihadist groups such as the Ahrar al Sham, the Islamic Vanguard, Mujahedeen Shura Council, the Muhajireen Group, and Chechen fighters, the terror group has overrun three large Syrian installations since last fall.

On 20 April 2013, Reuters headlined “Rebels battle with tribesmen over oil in Syria’s east” and reported that, “The EU said this week it wants to allow Syria’s opposition to sell crude in an effort to tilt the balance of power towards the rebels.” The EU supported and backed the ‘rebels’ seizure and black-market sale of whatever oil they could steal from Syria. This was the EU’s ‘humanitarianism’.

On 22 April 2013, the AP headlined “EU lifts Syria oil embargo to bolster rebels” and opened: “The European Union on Monday lifted its oil embargo on Syria to provide more economic support to the forces fighting to oust President Bashar Assad’s regime. The decision will allow for crude exports from rebel-held territory.”

On 1 May 2013, TIME bannered “Syria’s Opposition Hopes to Win the War by Selling Oil” and reported that, “Without an embargo, European companies can now legally begin importing barrels of oil directly from rebel groups, which have seized several oil fields in recent months, mostly around the eastern area of Deir Ezzor. That would provide the opposition with its first reliable source of income since the revolt erupted in Feb. 2011, and in theory hasten the downfall of Bashar Assad’s regime.” No mention was made, in any of this reporting, that this constituted aggression by the EU against the sovereign nation of Syria under the U.N.’s Charter and was therefore an international war-crime. The Western press didn’t care about such things — but only about ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’ and other such billionaires’ bumper-stickers for suckers.

On 22 February 2019, one of the U.N.’s top experts on international law, Alfred de Zayas, was interviewed for a half hour on the ways in which America and its allies are blatantly violating international law by attempting a coup to overthrow Venezuela’s Government, and by going even further and imposing sanctions against Venezuela’s Government because it was resisting this (in effect) economic invasion-by-means-of-sanctions. The EU is one of these invading countries, but some of its constituent states oppose the U.S.-sponsored invasion.

On 31 March 2019, I headlined “EU Joins NATO’s War Against Russia” and reported on the EU’s knee-jerk increase of economic sanctions against Russia as being the initial phase — the sanctions phase — of the U.S. regime’s wars to overthrow the leaders of nations that are friendly toward Russia (e.g., Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Bashar al-Assad, Viktor Yanukovych, and now Nicolas Maduro), and now (ever since the 2012 Magnitsky Act sanctions fraud against Russia) increasingly to apply Washington’s economic sanctions against Russia itself.

In international affairs, the EU therefore is clearly a stooge of the constantly aggressive U.S. regime.

After all, the U.S. regime had initiated and led the creation of the European Union. This scheme started as soon as FDR died and Harry S. Truman became America’s President. The death of FDR was also, in a sense, the death of any real democracy in the United States. Truman was forced onto the Democratic Party’s Presidential ticket in 1944 by the Democratic Party’s centi-millionaires against the will of FDR.

Truman and Churchill started the Cold War, which increasingly became mass thought-control in America (culminating with Joseph R. McCarthy) and with the CIA’s operations Gladio in Europe and Mockingbird in the U.S. itself.

First, NATO, and then the EU, were born as part of that secret U.S. strategy to conquer Russia even after the end of the U.S.S.R and of its communism and of its Warsaw Pact counterbalance to America’s NATO anti-Russian military alliance. Ever since that time (1991), America’s controlling owners of international corporations (our billionaires) have also controlled — via European nations’ own super-rich — first, Europe’s national Governments, and then the EU itself. It secretly remains true even after the 1991 end of the Cold War on Russia’s side.

Consequently: when there’s a choice to be made between supporting jihadists (or other extremists such as — in Ukraine — nazis) or else to side with Russia (or any nation that’s friendly toward Russia), the American team always back the jihadists or other extremists, and they say it’s being done ‘for human rights and democracy’ and other such hypocrisies, while they perpetrate actual war-crimes, and make fools of their own publics, in order ultimately to conquer Russia. That’s doing it the “diplomatic” way, and they don’t like Trump’s doing it the “Greed is good” way. The directness of his greed makes themselves look bad. That’s why these super-hypocrites preferred Obama.

Originally posted at strategic-culture.org


If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.

For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.

Notify of

oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Apr 19, 2019 6:40 AM

The destruction that we have seen since the Wall in my hometown fell in November 1989 is just mind boggling. Stalinism was discarded but what they have created in the last 30 years is much worse in many areas.

If you were to make a list of all the countries currently having issues with the US, it makes quite a list.

Apr 18, 2019 9:20 AM

Congratulations: rich in information and links, as ever, Mr Zuesse. May I suggest that privately, the hidden movers in the US do not want to “conquer” Russia, as this would deprive the former of a useful bogeyman? Wouldn’t the eternal tripartite world of “1984” be closer to the truth?

Exceptionals with lots of bombs
Exceptionals with lots of bombs
Apr 17, 2019 9:51 AM

I saw this question today. I guess it is quite relevant to the topic of Hypocritical EU”

– Why didn’t the world feel the same pity for the Old City of Damascus that was damaged in the bomb attacks?

Apr 17, 2019 8:39 AM

“It secretly remains true even after the 1991 end of the Cold War on Russia’s side.” That is one-dimensional, which is probably forgivable because the story Eric is telling here doesn’t include a comprehensive examination of Cold War, or ‘the’ Cold War. (Eric’s reference is to Chomsky’s “trivial” [but true and not unimportant] version of the Cold War.)

Eric Zuesse
Eric Zuesse
Apr 18, 2019 3:56 AM
Reply to  Arrby

Arrby, this has nothing to do with Chomsky. It has to do with real history: it has to do with this: https://washingtonsblog.com/2015/09/how-america-double-crossed-russia-and-shamed-the-west.html

Apr 18, 2019 6:55 AM
Reply to  Eric Zuesse

Eric, I am on topic. I read the article you pointed to. I don’t have a problem with it. Why do ‘you’ mention Chomsky? Are you implying that I can’t mention him when commenting on something you wrote? Lighten up. If you have this much difficulty with someone agreeing with you…

Apr 16, 2019 10:42 PM

Suffice to say, these nations, avant-garde in championing human rights causes, democracy and freedom of speech, how many of them offered protection to Julian Assange who brought to light US war crimes?

Yes, as mentioned in the article, this comes under ‘idealistic’ hypocrisy.

Apr 16, 2019 6:27 PM

We know and recognise this. The BBC has just spent half a news bulletin reporting a fire in a church in Paris, talking about “France’s spiritual home” and such nonsense. We are all being prepped for automatic response to what is presented to us. It’s fucking awful.

Seamus Padraig
Seamus Padraig
Apr 16, 2019 7:54 PM
Reply to  lundiel

Has anyone gotten around to blaming the gilets jaunes yet?

Apr 17, 2019 8:43 AM
Reply to  Seamus Padraig

So far, it seems, the attack is indirect. When Macron says, to French citizens, that “we” will rebuild, he is in effect trying to rebuff the message of the yellow vests that Macron is elitist and uncaring and not at all good for (all of) France.

British Justice
British Justice
Apr 17, 2019 9:24 AM
Reply to  lundiel

This outpouring of emotions in response to the cathedral fire looks like sympathy porn. It is awful indeed. Lamenting a piece is history is justified, OK, but it is now done while ignoring unprecedented erosion in human rights and personnel freedoms including freedom of speech. And nobody is talking about in controlled mass media.

In a big way, this fire diverted very conveniently people’s attention from the crime of arresting Assange to this historical and iconic building.

Apr 17, 2019 10:12 AM

The sheer relief of the British press in being able to talk nonsense about the fire in Paris is palpable. No more embarrassment about the public torture about to be laid on for the man the Guardian sees responsible for Russian interference in the US elections – still! There were some extraordinary lines eg ‘She survived the fascists and Nazis – and now this!’ It was of course fascist Vichy France that saved Paris and the church from obliteration by a prompt surrender, a nuance of history perhaps forgotten in the excitement. Meanwhile thousands rebelled across London and so far as possible this was downplayed. The Guardian is particularly entertaining without anything to say while papers like the Mail describe the rebels as middle class climate bores – Yes! Readers of the Guardian! Even the Telegraph barely suppresses its delight at for how the posh old folk adapted the ‘floppy’… Read more »

Apr 16, 2019 6:17 PM

The EU is nothing if not transparent about its role in Syria. It supports the Syrian National Council; High Negotiating Committee; National Coalition for Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces; all regime change fronts …and expects President al-Assad to stand down so that its proxy Jihadi terrorist political organisations – that have zero support among the population – can take over.

In fact: the EU is nothing if not transparent about all its foreign policy ventures. It publishes everything. It is just a pity they are not so transparent about their own internal workings – or their books. Then we might at least know where our “cooperative autonomous” sovereignty lies. And who with. In recent support of Jihadis.


Apr 16, 2019 4:47 PM

The working relationship between our odious Orange clown here in Washington to the EU’s three stooges – “May-Merkel & Macron” – is an example of what exactly? A sick inside joke? Slapstick comedy? Theatre of the absurd? Monty Python meets Orwell? Or does it simply reveal what seems now quite obvious to anyone who cares to look – that at this point in time the West, it’s leaders, and it’s institutions are now absolutely and completely amoral and corrupt? The morality-free response of support from the EU “leadership” to the illegal immoral U.S. sponsored coup attempt in Venezuela demonstrates clearly that respect for international law is now simply non-existent in the EU’s halls of power, just as it has always been in Washington. The West in general is now simply a large uber-corrupt criminal cabal holding much of the world hostage with it’s military and economic warfare, and endless threats… Read more »

Apr 16, 2019 8:51 PM

…and we are still missing Canada’s role on all this. Canada, the ‘paladin of righteousness’, and ‘consensus’, the smiley mask in front of the camera….

Apr 18, 2019 10:13 AM
Reply to  Ramdan

You won’t think so (and I know you don’t) when you get through reading Yves Engler’s and Todd Gordon’s very informative books.

Apr 16, 2019 2:18 PM

The most telling moment came in February 2014 when Baroness Ashton, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs announced at dawn after a night of right wing rioting and shooting that the EU recognised a new Ukrainian Government made up of bankers, Fascists and Israelites. In that moment she/EU did away with the legitimate ruler and appointed an American proxy government that promised to confront Russia. By virtue of a probably now defunct FOI request the Baronesses phone was examined. She had two calls with President Obama that night although she declined to say what was said. Ashton can still be seen around on various committees but the fact she was parachuted into her EU role by Tony Blair and never EVER was voted to do anything anywhere worked against her. She appears so slow witted one wonders whether she understood what was going on.