The way the European authorities are handling the Nord Stream explosions is anything but government policy. Rather, it is a survival tactic resorted to by the weaklings in a losing scenario.
A Swedish public prosecutor has just reported they have closed their probe into the blasts that sabotaged the Nord Stream pipelines in September 2022. The predictable conclusion was that there was no need for a further investigation after the Swedish nationals have been cleared of any involvement in this act of international terrorism. The rest of the story, including the real causes behind the Baltic Sea explosions and the environmental damaged they resulted in, is outside Sweden’s jurisdiction. Meanwhile, the German prosecutors carry on with their own inquiry, but chances are that nothing will become of it either.
Notably, the prevailing sentiment towards the investigators’ findings was rather lukewarm both in Russia and elsewhere. No one was really expecting Swedish prosecutors to look into the real culprits.
Russian authorities are surprised that they did not accuse Russia of blowing up the Gazprom property. Odd as that may sound, such conclusion would have been in line with the decades’ worth of interacting with European partners and watching their justice system in action. But the fact that the Swedish authorities putting an abrupt end to the inquiry did not come as a surprise does not make the West’s take on the legal fundamentals of the international relations acceptable.
The thing is that a lot of people are coming to terms with the Western justice system being the judicial arm of the respective nation’s political landscape. Indeed, now that the once ostensibly independent Western media has become a mouthpiece of war propaganda, why would the prosecutors not follow suit?
Just like the rest of the world, Russia is now fully aware of this new reality and will make proper adjustments to its interactions with the West. But it would be wise to avoid considering these decisions on the part of Sweden – or any other Western nation, for that matter – to be tolerable or acceptable. Although cynicism is a natural part of international politics, it should not be looked upon as virtuous or even appropriate behaviour. The way the European authorities are handling the Nord Stream explosions is anything but government policy. Rather, it is a survival tactic resorted to by the weaklings in a losing scenario. And sure enough, under the circumstances, they are forced to prevaricate and even lie to themselves.
When it comes to Sweden, Germany, Denmark or any other Western country, what we are dealing with is the actual loss of sovereignty. In one way or the other, the governments keep protecting their citizens from major security threats while being heavily dependent on a political force whose will they cannot even dream of squashing. Worse, current European elites do not even strive to do so. What would they do with their freedom?
This dependence has recently been exacerbated by the price Europe is paying for the US overseas misadventures, with America being the largest natural gas supplier for the EU in 2022 and 2023. Besides, Europe is shelling out for the support of the Kiev regime.
Technically, European nations are still independent in their foreign and even domestic policies. They are free to handle routine matters that DC has no vested interest in. They are also free to shape their economic policy and decide which EU countries are eligible to keep a functioning economy and which ones are bound to become tourism-oriented satellites of Germany and its closest allies.
However, the loss of sovereignty goes beyond these trivial formalities and appears to have much more practical implications. Saying the US ‘dictates its will’ to its NATO allies with regard to their government agendas would be an overstatement. No, they are implemented independently. But this independent implementation serves to ensure the US economic, political and military interest are met.
Differently put, Americans have no need to boss around their European allies on all fronts because their policies are already entrenched in the priorities of the US policy. The latter’s stability does not just affect their economic growth but even the mere survival of Europeans since, following the end of the Cold War, the US European allies have been struggling to work out their own interests. Far from it, they have botched the overarching economic policy and bombed in the competition for its periphery. Europe has all but failed the tasks it was pursuing since the Cold War had been over. It therefore does not make sense for them to part ways with the US interests.
That is why the default behaviour of the smaller and medium-sized nations that are officially the US allies presupposes that they can never be at odds with the Beltway strategy.
This is the backbone of NATO, which is indispensable for its very existence. No international military alliance can operate against the lack of discipline. Upon joining NATO, Sweden has become the latest in a series of countries losing the remaining shreds of their sovereignty. Germany has already suffered through the ordeal and learned how to trick the Big Brother in petty affairs. Yet, Sweden is intent on being a quick study. People’s free access to information is eclipsed by national security totally controlled by Washington. If Europe blows the US support, it will no longer be the second-biggest beneficiary of the lopsided access to the leverage over the global market.
Germany’s probe into the Nord Stream sabotage is still ongoing, but the writing is already on the wall for their findings. There is no conceivable way they can damage the interests of the US or even the current Washington-based policymakers.
It is nothing new, though. Rather, this is the nature of relationships within the alliance that defeated the USSR back in 1991. And it was not until recently that Russia has been able to challenge it. The key thing about the Western policymaking phenomenon is that the West grants you privilege in exchange for freedom. Everyone, including the Swedish government, knows full well this is an unfair deal. But because, growing up, many Westerners come to believe the world is unfair and cynical, gaining national security implies losing the ability to make independent foreign policy decisions. Whether it deals with public order, the media or free speech is irrelevant.
One would wonder if the Collective Security Treaty Organisation could then be called a proper military alliance, given that its leading member state does not boss around everybody else. In a classical Western sense, it could not. But, first of all, there is no reason to believe a voluntary alliance should abide by the rules established by a conceptually opposite organisation. Secondly, there is reason to believe the goals and emotions of Russia and its post-Soviet allies are also limited by one another’s interests. Finally, there is no need to subscribe to the West’s belief whereby international politics is solely shaped by the sword law. Russia has never folded to an external force while, thank goodness, protecting its unique status on the international stage over the past 500 years.