We are daily bombarded with news on what the ruling elites have decided to enforce and that it affects our living, yet instead of concentrating on the mechanism we split hair between us on whether we are for or against their decisions. Nobody is left being concerned on what it would be like for us to announce our decisions that would affect their lives.
There is no talk here whether we should act to prevent this or not, just whether we approve or disapprove their actions. The motive? Our disapproval has little if any effect on them, they will keep deciding, they will enforce, and we will comply, because we know no other way.
I say we change the agenda, stop making their news headlines our center for discussion, let’s keep focusing on our headlines, till they start addressing our agenda.
Dialectics of history show that the ruling class, the industrialists by 19th century, were the sole commanders of the state, and the state acted ONLY in their behalf. When people got organized as workers and started fighting this power back by the 30s capitalism collapsed, the state begun its evolutionary state as a social democracy, which also represented interests of people (labor law, welfare state, education, social rights) ... Capital didn't stand still and accept this evolution, it had to find a way to fight back and gain control of ALL states from outside and above. 1st strike was Breton Woods, privatization of national banking. The late state is where nearly all states are in non sustainable debt and all this debt is controlled by private bankers. And that means social democracy is dead and its destruction is irreversible, as long as capitalism survives. That means that nearly all "progressive" reformists of the capitalists states are either too naive or are lying too much. There is NOTHING that can change within capitalism, unless people are willing to go really hungry, cold, and start nearly from 18th century conditions and rebuild. The markets are not forgiving any deviance! Ask the Yugoslavians, they will tell you all about their independent social democracy.
So what happens if Zelensky sides with Europe on this one? How does the US apply its peace plan if it's been negotiated solely with Russia? The only way I see this working is the US sending troops to fight along with Russia...
Neither Zelensky nor Europe have any agency here. The U.S. has decided that neither have a place at the table. Instead, Russia and the US will hash out the details while Europe is left to graciously foot the bill and shut up. Kellogg suggested that European leaders stop whining about being sidelined and instead offer concrete solutions, and the reality is there are no solutions Europe can offer. US priorities are to extricate themselves from the war and make sure Europe pays for it all. The message to Europe to keep quiet, and pray the grown-ups in Washington and Moscow don’t decide to trade your future for a handshake.
Zelensky can see the writing on the wall, and he's pleading for a European army in Munich. It's a desperate Hail Mary to avoid becoming a sacrificial pawn in America’s geopolitical chess game. Meanwhile, European leaders are trembling at the prospect of a US-Russia deal that screws them over. The reality is that Europe simply lacks the industrial capacity to keep up with Russia militarily, hence why the war ends when US pulls the plug on it.
The article you cite talks about military spending, not industrial capacity. Russia is running on a war economy, Europe isn't; this large difference in spending is to be expected.
Surely Europe realises it cannot rely on the US for defense anymore, so there's a possibility they choose to dramatically increase its defense spending. If Ukraine loses the war, a lot of European countries won't have too much trouble convincing their citizens it needs to be done.
The reason Europe has no "concrete solution", like you said, is because they won't accept the kind of compromise Putin would want. Now that the US decided not to be an ally anymore, I don't think they'll just stay there doing nothing.