The competition between the European states, who is seen by the USA and Biden as the leading European power within Europe and the EU and also NATO, continues. After it was rumored that Scholz’s German visit to China could be a German special path with a lot of „naivety“, there was now a lot of praise, as Scholz wrested Xi’s statement against the use of Russian nuclear weapons and even Biden gave his green light. Nevertheless, Scholz is accused of having fallen out with France, as have many opponents within the EU and NATO, although the allegations are never concretely specified. Macron was the first European leader to meet Biden in Washington after the corona crisis, Biden declared France the leading European power, pointed out the common struggle for freedom since the American and French revolutions, which both countries have historically – despite De Gaulle, NATO exit and force de frappe- has always been claimed in a historical community of destiny and Alliance of Democracies. In addition, Macron is trying to prevent the growing trade dispute not only between the USA and China, but now also due to Biden’s anti-inflation subsidy programs and a new industrial policy of America First between the USA and the EU, while Germany under Habeck and the EU think about a European industrial policy, subsidies and Buy European first reaction. The internationally proclaimed Green New Deal, including e-mobility, seems to be a national issue again, which is why Macron, after his NATO brain death statement, now sees “super aggressive behavior” on the part of the USA and fears a split in the West over the New Green New Deal and economic protectionism and says so openly. He is now acting like EU Commission President Juncker in his meeting with Trump. Biden noticed that and promised to think about it. So the conflict has been postponed, but not yet resolved.

Apparently, Scholz is now trying to get Germany to be heard by the United States as a leading European power. After the Macron visit, during which Biden once explained that France was now the leading European power and was the only one still in contact with Putin, Scholz now wanted to show that he and Germany could be leading powers within the Zeitenwende/turning point. Especially after a hastily convened Berlin Security Conference, which has never been heard of, except posthumously, that it has existed almost unnoticed for 21 years alongside the Munich Security Conference and where, in addition to Scholz, NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg and several NATO Defense Ministers performed after NATO – Conference in Bucharest. Scholz probably wants symbolically show that Berlin and he are still the capital through the BSC and not Munich with the MSC as the secret transatlantic capital. Now it is interesting that it became known today that Scholz talked with Putin, although this was allegedly a monopoly of Macron’s and SCholz had asked Putin for a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine war, whereupon Putin had him rebuffed for the time being because there could be no negotiations, as long as Germany and the West keep supplying Ukraine with weapons that will encourage them to keep launching new offensives. It is interesting that Scholz’s initiative has so far gone uncommented within the West, even in Ukraine – there is a strange silence. The ex-Gazprom and Putin adviser and alleged Russia expert Dr. Alexander Rahr, who has since been sacked, said: „We don’t know much about the content of the conversation. The press probably doesn’t get it. It was about gas, that’s for sure. Uniper wants more gas from Russia. Putin says fine, but only if no Leopards are delivered.”

A very narrow view of a Gazprom advisor on a special field. What is more interesting is that the rest of the West is almost completely silent on these talks and does not openly attack Scholz, not even Melnyk and the Ukrainians. Dr Rahr added: „Melnyk has no electricity. Cell phone empty“. The dumbest evasive assessment one can make and shows it’s not just about gas. Melnyk’s or Selensky’s criticism of such talks would probably be carried to Germany and the USA via Swiss alphorns in an emergency, even without a mobile phone, a fact to which our Gazprom man Rahr commented: „In any case, Gazprom wants to deliver gas via Turkey.“ One wonders whether he is nostalic because the Russian Turkstream would also be blocked by the USA, NATO and the EU. Wishful dreaming. Maybe, if Erdogan’s Turkey also includes this in its ever-expanding wish list and political price list for approval of Finland and Sweden’s NATO membership: Turkstream and Russian gas, extradition of PKK and Gülen people or Kurdish and Turkish opposition figures. F-16, F-35, new deliveries of weapons, support for the Turkish ground offensive in northern Syria, support or neutrality in the coming conflict with Greece and the revision of the Lausanne Treaty. This is slowly becoming a bit much for NATO and at some point this neo-Ottoman bazaar trader and barker will get a big backlash. Sweden, as well as other NATO members, have meanwhile indicated that it  enough and that, in an emergency, NATO membership could be dispensed and NATO could also consider double structures, a kind of two-speed or two- track- NATO.

The design flaw of the EU and NATO is that you can admit members, but there is no possibility of exclusion if they misbehave, which is why Orban and Erdogan can boycott and blackmail everything due to the principle of unanimity. A number of critics of this system hope for a reform that anchors a majority principle, but precisely this reform would be blocked again by these trouble makers due to unanimity, which is why there will never be a reform. In the meantime, however, there are considerations as to whether one should not create double structures between which one can orientate oneself back and forth in order to neutralize blockages and these disruptive nations. A kind of two-speed or two- track- NATO, an official NATO de jure that remains active as long as it is not blocked and paralyzed, and a second parallel NATO, a security architecture of a coalition of the willing, a kind of NATO minus 2-3 with a new one transatlantic and European security architecture of multilateral and also bilateral alliances which, in an emergency, can easily circumvent and absorb a paralysis of the previous NATO. Perhaps one should also consider founding a new, reformed NATO without the old birth defects of non-excludability and the principle of unanimity.

 In addition, the dispute about a leading European power should be ended and a north and east expansion with the risk of eroding the southern flank of NATO shouul be balanced by a constant geopolitical axis of the Weimar Triangle of France – Germany – Poland in alliance with the USA and GB and a strategic geopolitical center line against neo-Ottoman and neo-Hungarian disruptive manoeuvres. In addition, there should be no new EU enlargement, as Scholz intends, but only if, as Macron demands, an EU reform is carried out beforehand with the possibility of exclusion if the EU admission conditions are violated and the implemantation of majority decision-making principle. As long as this does not exist, no more EU enlargement and also NATO enlargement, only association agreements and connection via the new European Silk Road Global Gateway and above all infrastructure construction. But no new nationalist troublemakers in NATO and the EU. In the meantime, the EU has also had enough of Orban and the EU subsidies are to be cut off for the first time. It’s the only language he understands and perhaps Erdogan would understand too if, like Putin once did, the association agreement were to be turned off economically .means: an economic shock and awe-blockade.