🗓️ Posted on March 12, 🎞️ Yanis Varoufakis on Why European Rearmament Will Weaken Europe.

Transcript:

Hello, this is the 10th of March 2025, and I’m Yanis Varoufakis with my message to you on European rearmament and why I believe very strongly that European rearmament will weaken rather than strengthen Europe and in the process make the world less safe.

Under the slogan Peaceful Strength, Europe is rearming, with Germany at the forefront of this rearmament effort. The result will be an even weaker, more totalitarian Europe. Deeper economic crisis for European countries. A far-right that will continue to gain strength by magnetizing the increasingly impoverished working and lower middle classes, and I’m very much afraid the fragmenting European Union, in complete geopolitical disrepute.

Looking back, the only strategic goal European Union leaders agreed to consider, once Russia invaded Ukraine, was a successful NATO-assisted war effort, on behalf of Ukraine by which Russia would be forced behind its pre-2014 borders, while paving the ground for Ukraine to join NATO.

That was the plan. Plan A, and the only plan that Europe had.

However, long before Donald Trump was re-elected, that goal evaporated. Since then, in the absence of a Plan B, and in the midst of panic, the European Union has proclaimed rearmament as the panacea. Alas, European rearmament will soon prove a solution worse than the original problem.

Before we get to that, it’s important to mention the three reasons why the European Union’s Plan A failed, evaporated.

First, the transformation of Russia into a war economy has strengthened rather than weakened Putin’s regime. Second, even Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden, despite his false promises to Zelenskyy, never seriously considered bringing Ukraine into NATO. And thirdly, it was clear that in the United States Congress, both parties, Democrats and Republicans, did not even want to hear of the idea that NATO troops would be fighting alongside the Ukrainians.

So, in a display of lamentable hypocrisy, despite the frequent statements that Putin is the new Hitler, the cowardly West continued to send weapons to the exhausted Ukrainians, so that the Ukrainians could defeat the ‘new Hitler’ on their own, on the behalf of Europeans, but on their own, the Ukrainians entirely and utterly on their own.

Inevitably, and despite the valiant resistance of the increasingly exhausted Ukrainian soldiers, the European Union’s sole strategic objective disappeared, dissolved, evaporated, regardless of who won the United States presidential elections last November. Donald Trump simply told the truth with a bluntness that reflects his long-standing contempt not just for Volodymyr Zelenskyy but for the European Union itself.

And now? Well, now, a Europe weakened by two decades of economic stagnation is struggling to come to terms with the fact that President Trump has abandoned Europe to its illusions and delusions.

And thus, rearmament became the go-to, knee-jerk reaction of European leaders.

Going even further back, you may recall that in 1938, after the Munich agreement, Winston Churchill wrote to the then British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain saying: ‘You had a choice between war and disgrace. You chose disgrace and you will have war.’ Well, in their anxiety not to make the same mistake as Chamberlain, EU leaders are ready to repeat it but in reverse.

Their choice to pursue a never-ending war in Ukraine, more and more war until some kind of victory will inevitably give way to the humiliating peace that Trump will impose upon the Europeans and upon the Zelenskyy government when the Europeans and Zelenskyy finally call to the White House or visit Mar-a-Lago, begging.

Given all this, undoubtedly, Europe must rise to the occasion. It has to do better than what it is doing. The question is, do what?

What exactly is the European Union missing? What is the greatest dearth that it faces? What prevents the European Union from being taken seriously on the geopolitical chessboard?

Incredibly, European decision-makers will do anything to avoid acknowledging the obvious answer. Europe lacks a proper treasury. Europe lacks the equivalent of the State Department of a foreign office. Europe has no parliament with the power to fire the executive, the European Council. [I hope he meant the European Commission – my note.]

Worse still, there isn’t even a debate in Europe on how to fill these huge holes in Europe’s flimsy institutional architecture.

Military Keynesianism, the bastard child of proper Keynesianism that of course John Maynard Keynes would immediately deplore, will prove the pretext for shrinking social transfers everywhere in France, Italy, Greece, Spain, across Europe.

Which brings me to two questions that I ask of my fellow Europeans. Do we really want a Germany that is arming itself by spending mountains of borrowed money, as well as money grabbed from the already emasculated working people, who are thus turning to the ultra-right, to the neo-fascists?

Do you truly think that it is a good thing for Europe and Germany to combine a German military Keynesianism with an increasingly authoritarian state?

The German state is becoming increasingly authoritarian. Proof of that: they have no hesitation in sending thousands of police officers to break up gatherings of citizens, including German Jews, who oppose the Palestinian genocide.

And does anyone believe that Vladimir Putin will be deterred, will be shaking in his boots at the prospect that Europe may have a few more missiles and rockets?

The same Europe that is falling deeper and deeper into political paralysis and a political dynamic that bolsters the neo-fascists and the AfD in Germany in particular.

I think the answers are self-evident. No, Europe’s rearmament will give rise to an even weaker Europe, to member states in deeper economic crisis. With the far-right gaining strength as they magnetize the increasingly affected working and lower middle classes. Pushing the European Union, the whole of the European Union, further into complete geopolitical irrelevance and disrepute.

And the alternative, I hear you ask, the alternative is to travel in exactly the opposite direction. Instead of European rearmament, we should work towards putting together Europe’s own multidimensional, non-aligned, three-pronged peace process.

First, clearly and unequivocally reject Donald Trump’s predatory attack on Ukraine’s natural resources.

Second: With the carrot of sanctions relief and the prospect of returning to Moscow its $300 billion of frozen assets, negotiate with the Kremlin, hopefully with Beijing’s participation, a new comprehensive strategic agreement under which Ukraine will become what Austria was during the Cold War, sovereign, neutral, and as integrated with Western Europe and with the rest of Europe as its citizens, the Ukrainian people, desire.

Third: Instead of a permanent confrontation of heavily armed armies along the Russia-Ukraine border or line of control or ceasefire line, we should propose a demilitarized zone of at least 500 km deep on each side, the right of return of all displaced persons, an agreement on the governance of the disputed territories on the model of the Good Friday Agreement that ended the war in Northern Ireland, and yes, a Green investment program for the effected areas, to be jointly funded by the European Union and Russia.

As for the many outstanding issues, those should be referred to negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations. If we really want to strengthen Europe, the first step is not rearmament at the expense of the social fabric, but a rational peace process that will put a break on stagnation, on debt, on warmongering, on authoritarianism, totalitarianism, and the new austerity brought about by military Keynesianism.

This is Yanis Varoufakis, signing off on the 10th of March.

Oh, right, a demilitarized zone of at least 500 km deep on each side. Is this guy out of his mind?!

🗓️ On March 13, 🎞️ Yanis Varoufakis: How the EU Is Fueling War, Austerity & Authoritarianism.

This one had no official transcript, but only an atrocious auto-generated one. With the help of Grok—or rather, Grok with my help—I’ve come (we’ve come!) to the following version, which should be accurate enough:

Friends, fellow travelers, comrades,

We once had a dream of what Europe could have been—a Europe of shared prosperity, of dignity, of freedom; a Europe of peace, with hope. Alas, that dream is now dead. It’s gone. It’s lost. It’s kaput. It’s finished. Why? What the hell happened to Europe?

Well, we know what happened to Europe. We know why. Politicians from all over are descending upon this splendid city as we speak, like manic drones determined to blow up, to bomb to smithereens, what is left of the dream of Europe.

We know what happened in Europe. On the 9th of February 2016, we were at the Volksbühne Theater in Berlin. That was the day—the night—when DiEM25 was born. In that meeting, we said in no uncertain terms: Europe will either democratize, or it will disintegrate. In the last nine years, Europe refused to democratize, and therefore, today, it is disintegrating. It is degenerating into a totalitarian war union. You can see it. You can smell it.

This is what happens when you have austerity for the many and money-printing as if there’s no tomorrow for the very few, mixed with this air of mind-numbing surges of inequality. Every time capitalism stagnates and inequality surges—while the official left joins the center in a futile attempt to bail out the bankrupt liberal establishment—do you know what’s around the corner? Fascism and war, just like in the 1930s.

Two varieties of totalitarianism began to tussle for power. The radicalized neo-fascist right promises to “make us great again”—not through ending austerity or exploitation, but through a moral reckoning, a kind of cultural cleansing that targets the “impure foreign bodies” in the “pure body” of the nation, or at least the Christian, white, patriarchal Europe. Foreigners, trans people, lesbians, Muslims, and Jews—particularly those who don’t support genocide are proclaimed the enemy within. On the other side, you have the radicalized totalitarian centrists, who succeeded in retaining their relevance as the only bulwark against the fascists. How do they do that? With policies that deepen the crisis that fuels fascism—and thus their own claim to be the only bulwark against it. This is the definition of a perfect vicious cycle that fuels totalitarianism. Like Tweedledum and Tweedledee, the radicalized totalitarian centrists and the radicalized neo-fascists are sucking the air out of democracy, making totalitarianism great again, in every variety of it.

Lest we forget, we did not have to wait for fascists to win government before our Greek referendum of July 2015 was banned because they didn’t like the outcome. We didn’t have to wait for fascists to win government before they fired Melanie Schweizer from her job at the German civil service for failing to support genocide. We didn’t have to wait for fascists to win government before they banned me from entering Germany, even via Zoom. We didn’t have to wait for fascists to win government before the Romanian presidential elections were canceled, simply because the radicalized totalitarian centrists didn’t like the outcome.

The only substantive difference between the 1930s and our times today—do you know what it is? Tweedledum, the radicalized totalitarian centrists, and Tweedledee, the radicalized neo-fascist parties, have traded places when it comes to war. Somehow, confusingly, Tweedledum—the radicalized totalitarian centrists who are weaponizing military Keynesianism—are crying out for more war, for an endless war. And the Tweedledee part of the equation—the radicalized neo-fascists—are advocating for peace. Well, a very stilted, very ruthless, very chilling form of peace.

Yes, in 2015 and 2016, we foretold all this at the Volksbühne Theater. But that didn’t stop us from failing to stop it—a cruel reminder that being right is not everything. Why did we fail? Why did we miss the popular wave, which ten years ago was on our side of politics? And why, therefore, did we allow the fascists to exploit the revived thirst for radicalism?

Yes, it’s true we were ruthlessly squeezed between Tweedledum, the radicalized totalitarian centrists, and Tweedledee, the radicalized neo-fascist right. But we have to confess that we made some unforced errors ourselves. We invested—and this is a personal criticism, too—too much in green Keynesianism, forgetting the timeless lesson that even when the ruling class adopts Keynesianism as a last resort to save themselves, they will always stop it, withdraw from it, the moment their bottom line improves—well before the many taste any of the fruits of Keynesianism, green or not so green. Our Green New Deal was, after all, never adopted except in name. They even dropped the “new”—they just made it a “Green Deal,” a totally vacuous program, which now, of course, is dead in the water. So, our Green New Deal contributed, in the minds of people out there who are not particularly political, to a perception: every time they hear the word “green,” they immediately think, “You know what? They translate it like the Iraqis in Baghdad when they hear the word ‘democracy’ with an American accent—they hide under the table because they know they’ll be bombed.” The people of Europe, the strugglers of Europe, when they hear “green policy,” they think, “Oh my God, they’ll tax me again—higher cost of living for me.” That had to shoulder the banking crisis, the bailouts.

We also proved unable to liberate people from exploitation. What we gave them, as DiEM25, was the freedom to choose their pronouns on our website—which would have been fine if it wasn’t so pathetically inadequate in the grander scheme of things. We ended up, instead of organizing auto workers, the precariat, nurses, organizing signifiers—appearing to many people, to the vast majority, as an intellectual vanguard that is really enjoying the self-styled subversive thrills from an imagined revolution, with all the comforts and trappings of a bourgeoisie. And last but not least, we thought we could mobilize and radicalize the existing left, center-left, Green parties—only to discover, two or three years later, that they didn’t care. They were not interested.

What must we do now? Let’s begin by acknowledging that we are at the end of a forty-year-long cycle of a vicious class war waged against working people, and we are at the beginning of another cycle—this time of military Keynesianism, of weaponized xenophobia, of totalitarianism within, and techno-feudalism all around us. So, it’s time to be bold. Time to be clear on seven crucial issues that must become seven crucial campaigns.

On security and peace—or peace with security—and how to end the carnage on the killing fields of Ukraine, where lives are being devoured by ruthless mechanical precision.

Let us reject outright Donald Trump’s predatory seizure of Ukraine’s natural resources.

Let us campaign to get the whole of Europe—not just one country or another—out of NATO immediately. There is no point in NATO—it has been proven. Donald Trump has proven it. We should have proven it before Donald Trump, but we need to get out of NATO. Brussels needs to throw NATO into the sea.

Let us plot a course to a non-aligned but never neutral Europe—a non-aligned but never neutral Europe—offering to relax sanctions as a carrot and return to Russia its 300 billion in frozen assets. We should immediately commence negotiations with the Kremlin and with Beijing on a comprehensive strategic arrangement between Europe, Russia, and China—an arrangement within which Ukraine becomes, in the next 100 years, what Austria was during the Cold War. What was Austria during the Cold War? It was sovereign, it was neutral, democratic, and as integrated with the rest of Europe as its citizens needed and desired. That’s what the plan for Ukraine should be.

On green prosperity, we must fiercely oppose military Keynesianism—it is unsustainable. The only thing it can produce is poverty, debt, and more crisis, not to mention war. We must fiercely oppose military Keynesianism and we must replace it with a massive green investment program that combines development with degrowth.

On dignity, let us campaign for a new monetary commons that sidelines private banks, offers a trust fund for everyone, and guarantees a universal dividend—call it a universal basic income—to each.

On the big thorny issue of migration, let us turn the accusation of us being “soft on foreigners” into a virtue. Let us shout it from the rooftops that Europe without mass migration will die—it will perish, it will not be viable. Let us proclaim that we want migrants not out of solidarity, but out of self-interest.

On combating techno-feudalism, let us sanction immediately the cloud tech lords—not just Musk, but Jeff Bezos, Peter Thiel, Google. Let’s restrict immediately the access to European markets of Amazon, Uber, Airbnb—instead of the Luxembourg-Ireland-Holland schemes by which they pay no tax.

Let us tax them to extinction. Let’s impose… Can’t we create our own apps in this continent of ours? Why do we need them?

Let us impose interoperability—that would really cut them off at the knees.

Let’s end the ban on companies like the Dutch company ASML to export tech to China.

And above all else, let us develop our own socialized cloud capital—the steerings of a magnificent future techno-socialism.

On freedom, shall we dismantle totalitarianism now in each one of our countries? Shall we not benefit enormously from fighting for everyone’s freedom to vote, and for their vote to be counted; for the freedom of expression of our enemies as well, not just the people we agree with? Unlike J.D. Vance, who rightly spoke out in Munich, if you remember, a few weeks ago, against Europe’s descent into censoriousness—he did say that, and he was right, except of course that he was a bloody hypocrite because he would never defend Julian Assange’s right to journalism, or our right to freedom of speech in favor of Palestine.

Speaking of Palestine and free speech, it is clear now, is it not, that what started in Gaza cannot stay in Gaza? Such brutality could not be contained within Gaza. To keep it from our media, from our cultural institutions, from the streets and the squares where we demonstrate, the powers that be had to dissolve basic civil liberties in Germany, in Holland, in France, in the United States. That’s why our final campaign must be: Stop genocide. Get the whole of Europe to boycott, divest, and sanction Israel—the last apartheid state—in the same way that we sanctioned, divested, and boycotted South Africa under apartheid.

Friends, fellow travelers, comrades, we have much to do. The European dream is dead. Long live the dream that we are dreaming tonight, together. Carpe diem.

Thank you.

Well, I can’t even. It would be too long.

Russia aside, I’d only mention that chaotic immigration is by no means acceptable. Public order and safety are non-negotiable, and the past decade’s terrorist acts in France, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, and Germany—committed by first-generation migrants or their descendants—prove that Europe is currently unable to handle the influx of migrants. Why isn’t Japan resorting to uncontrolled migration? It’s even more geriatric than Europe as a whole! Maybe Yanis missed something.