The standard charge of being a Trojan horse or an agent of influence for another side within NATO and the EU is not a new charge. It all started with De Gaule linking GB accession to the EU to the point that the British were a US Trojan horse to prevent any further integration or Franco-German axis and break up this dominance within the EC and also a European one To prevent a central state under Franco-German hegemony. This is not entirely wrong if you look at the writings and actions of the conservative US and British proxies, be it the Heritage Foundation, Margaret Thatcher, the Margaret Thatcher Foundation or the Republican-leaning Heritage Foundation. They didn’t want a European economic bloc, let alone an EU or even an EU army, perhaps still under the Force de Frappe and Germany’s access to nuclear weapons or a euro, further integration of the European project, but a kind of free trade zone without an economic bloc and a single currency or EU Army as a competitor to the Anglo-Saxon dominated NATO. The exception was Tony Blair, who wanted to set up his own EU troops with Schröder and Chirac, which were to have their first combat area during the Bright Star maneuvers in Egypt. But by the time of the Iraq war, at the latest, that was over, since Germany and France did not want to take part in the Bush jr. war, while Blair eagerly took part in the Iraq war, as did almost all Eastern European countries. The Coalition of the Willing, even if the Eastern Europeans were only willing, because they hoped for NATO membership, along with US support for EU membership. . In addition, Eurasia fantasies arose during this time, which French philosophers such as Emanuel Todd’s writing „Superpower USA- An Orbitutary“ proposed a European-Russian axis, Schröder tried to get Russia and China into the G 7 in order to get approval from that sort of G 9 which could pressure  the USA and the UK for a German seat on the UN Security Council. Especially since US Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld spoke of old and new Europe, the loyal and dependent Eastern Europeans and the unreliable Western Europeans, above all Schröder-Germany and Chirac-France. Peter Scholl-Latour, in turn, spoke again of the Eastern Europeans as the Trojan horses of Anglo-Saxon imperialism in the EU and NATO and the EU, who were in coordination with the UK. We don’t want to go through all the intermediate stages. As is well known, GB ended outside the EU with Brexit, now wants to be Global Britain, is promoting alliances with the East Europeans, especially the Baltic States, Poland and Ukraine, which the East European states under Poland’s leadership are now doing through the Visegrad Group, the Three Lakes Initiative and want to promote their own possible military alliance. That is why GB and Poland now join forces again, especially the latter, which after all sits together in the Weimar triangle between Germany, France and Poland, replacing the old trio Germany, France, GB and is now seen again on the western side as the Trojan horse of the Anglo-Saxons in the Weimar trio , which, together with the Eastern Europeans, the Visegrad Group, is intended to create a kind of new lobbying function within NATO and the EU and want to act as the leading power of an Eastern European regional power within the EU and NATO. But again in the Visegrad group is Orban-Hungary, who sympathizes with Putin and Xi the outlaw, but like PiS-Poland is an enemy of the EU. But Orban is again seen as the Trojan horse of a Eurasian axis with Xi and Putin. At the same time, however, PiS Poland, which is said to be completely anti-Putin, criticizes Macron for his proposal to create a European army under the command of the Force de frappe, as well as for his continued willingness to engage in dialogue with Putin despite the Ukraine war and previous failed attempts at dialogue. Yes, for PiS Poland Macron is then just a „Putin’s Trojan horse“, whereby the PiS in the EU is in an alliance with Marie Le Pen’s Front National, but treats her with care and not as „Putin’s Trojan horse“. PiS- Poland  accuses  Europe and first of all accuse Macron because of his value liberalism and dialogue with Putin, although it is clear that a Le Pen in power would set up a Eurasian axis with Putin, as this also could be expected with Trump. In any case, PiS does not consider Trump and Le Pen to be “Putin’s Trojan horses”, but only Macron and Germany in connection with the Ukrainian ambassador Melnyk, whose anti-German attacks were again compensated  by the Klitschkos by means of praise for the German brother people, thanks for German aid while  the common value orientation of the German national anthem unity and justice and freedom are emphasized. Poland and the Ukrainian Ambassador Melnyk, in turn, see Germany in particular, regardless of Merkel or Schröder, as Putin’s „Trojan horses“, although they do not level such accusations against the Obama and Biden governments, which were against Nord Stream 2 but just as tame towards Putin and were calibrated to commitment like the Germans. So: loud accusations of being a Trojan horse of a foreign power and less NATO and EU unity – also in view of the fact that despite the Ukraine war Trump and Le Pen could be the game changers for Putin. The PiS is schizophrenically closer to Le Pen than to Macron. Who knows: maybe the PiS is also a „Trojan horse of Putin“, even if they don’t know it themselves and just always shit on the Germans.

In addition, one should no longer quote the Polish-born US presidential adviser and US geostrategist Brzezinski, who anticipated the Ukraine war at the time after he lured the Soviet communists into the „Afghan trap“ and whose son Mark became US ambassador to Poland, while his other son Ian is working for US think tanks developing strategic NATO proposals towards Russia and China. Along with „Fuck the EU“ – Victoria Nuland and the Kagans, an inherited team of US imperialism. But here’s the quote from Brzezinski in his book „Chessboard“and how he saw Ukraine as the „linchpin of American hegemony“:

“Eurasia is thus the chessboard on which the struggle for global dominance will play out in the future (…) Nonetheless, Russians will eventually have to understand that Russia’s national self-discovery is not an act of surrender but of liberation (…) Despite its protests will Russia accept the fact that NATO enlargement in 1999 will include several Central European countries (…) In contrast, Russia will find it incomparably more difficult to accept Ukraine’s NATO accession“

Then:

„It cannot be stressed enough that Russia ceases to be an empire without Ukraine, but automatically becomes an empire with Ukraine subordinate and eventually subjugated to it.“ (Brzezinski, NZZ, 10/29/99)