Bloodthirsty American politicians like Lindsey Graham are eager to drag the war on forever, so they do everything to scupper negotiations

Thepictureof Lindsey Graham, US Senator for South Carolina, and Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, grinning into a camera in Brussels on June 2, is worth a thousand words.

Graham is one of the most extreme hardcore warmongers in Washington DC, and the competition is pretty stiff. Ever since he first became a member of the US Congress over 30 years ago - once in, American politicians are rarely voted out - he has devoted his career to arguing vehemently for war.

His remarks are often not just belligerent but also sadistic, such as when he recentlypostedthat he hoped 'Greta could swim', meaning that he hoped her Gaza aid ship would be torpedoed. Joking about an attack on a civilian aid ship carrying a young female civilian activist is sick - and typical of Graham.

Like his old friend, the late Senator John McCain, Lindsey Graham is obsessed with the idea of war with Russia. He has been pushing for this since at least 2014. In 2016 hetoldUkrainian soldiers, "Your fight is our fight."

Graham's presence in Brussels is therefore significant. Ever since von der Leyen's appointment in 2019, she has pushed herself forward as the principal public face of the Brussels institutions. Six years ago, shesaidshe wanted to make the European Commission into a 'geopolitical' body - even though it has no role in foreign or military policy.

Since then, she has done little else than parade on the international stage. She is among the most hawkish and anti-Russian European figures, absurdlyclaiming, like French Foreign Minister Bruno Lemaire, that EU sanctions have brought the Russian economy to its knees.

The Graham-von der Leyen alliance is therefore a natural one - against Donald Trump. European politicians are oftenquite explicitin their view that Trump is now theenemy.

The same goes for Lindsey Graham. In Kiev last week, Graham explicitlychallengedTrump's authority to decide US foreign policy. He lambasted the very notion of negotiations with Russia - just as Zelensky did to Vance in the Oval office in February - and said that the president of the US is not the boss. "In America, you have more than one person at the card table. We have three branches of government," - meaning that the Senate would soon impose its ownsanctionson Russia, whatever the executive does. Graham'sbudget billfrom February is intended to spend even more money on the US military - as if that were possible - which means that he is marshalling the US deep state to fight back after initially reeling from the re-election of Trump.

Meanwhile, the Europeans' determination to continue the war is existential. Their Russophobia, which goes back at least to the 2012 Russian presidential election, when Putin came back into the Kremlin, is extreme because their "Europe" is defined by its hostility to Russia. Russia is "the other Europe" which the EU does not want to be and which it defines itself against.

Von der Leyen and others want to use the war against Russia to federalise Europe and create a single state. Meanwhile, Trump's Russia policy is based on sidelining Europe. When he first announced talks with the Russians, EU leadersdemandeda seat at the table. They failed. US-Russia talks took place outside Europe - in Riyadh - while the Russia-Ukraine talks the EU vehemently opposed are taking place without the EU, in Istanbul.

Let us not forget how furiously EU leaders opposed talking to Russia. When Viktor Orban travelled to Kiev and Moscow last July, Ursula von der LeyendenouncedOrban's "appeasement". The EU's then chief diplomat said in an officialstatementthat the EU "excludes official contacts between the EU and President Putin."

The French foreign ministersaidin February that if Sergey Lavrov telephoned him he would not answer the call. Now these very same people claim they want to "force" the Russians to come and talk!

EU policy on Russia is now in ruins. That is why, like Graham, they are determined to stop Trump. Their attempts have been ever more desperate and ridiculous. On May 12, Kaja Kallas and other EU leaderssaidRussia "must agree" to a ceasefire before any talks. Three days later, those talks started anyway. Britain also tried to scupper them bysayingit was "unacceptable" for Russia to demand recognition of the "annexed" regions, which is odd considering Britain is not a participant.

European credibility is therefore at zero. In March, the British prime minister hadsaidthat the plans to send British and French troops to Ukraine had entered "the operational phase." They were ready, he claimed, to protect Ukraine's security by directly entering the war zone. By April, these plans had beendropped.

On May 10, European leadersthreatenedRussia with "massive sanctions" if it did not agree to a ceasefire immediately. Russia did not agree to a ceasefire and yet there have been no more "massive sanctions." A 17th package of sanctions was indeedannouncedon May 14, but it was so weak that Hungary and Slovakia, who oppose the EU's overall policy, let it pass. In any case, the 17th package clearly had nothing to do with the ultimatum because such sanctions take a long time to prepare. Instead, that is what Lindsey Graham was in Brussels to discuss.

The EU and the UK have thus sidelined themselves with their meaningless braggadocio. They cannot operate without the Americans. But which Americans? The claim that the White House did not know about the recent Ukrainian drone attack on Russian airfields might well be true: the US deep state, embodied by people like Graham, is clearly trying to undermine the executive. Both Lindsey Graham and former CIA director Mike Pompeo were in Ukraine just days before the attack.

The political goal of the drone attack was obviously to scupper the talks scheduled for the following day in Istanbul, or to provoke Russia into a massive response and drag the US into the war. Even if the attack does not succeed in these goals, it clearly sets the tone for the future Ukrainian insurgency which, American and European officialshope, will turn that country into an 'Afghanistan' for Russia. The US deep state is in for the long game.

So are the Europeans. On May 9, 'Europe Day', European leadersconfirmedtheir intention to set up a Special Tribunal for the crime of aggression, to prosecute Russia for invading in February 2022.

Western European states are already the primary financers of the International Criminal Court, whose prosecutor is British. The ICC indicted Russian leaders, including Putin, in 2023 and 2024, on various very surprising charges. (Ursula von der Leyen continued tolieabout "20,000 abducted children," the day after the Ukrainians gave the Russians a list of 339 missing children.) Now the Europeans intend to open a new front in their 'lawfare' against Russia.

Such a Special Tribunal, if it comes into existence, will tear the heart out of any peace agreement - just as Ukraine's acceptance of the jurisdiction of the ICC in 2014 and 2015 rendered the Minsk agreement of February 2015 null and void. With one side of its mouth, Ukraineaskedthe ICC to prosecute Russian officials and Donbass "terrorists"; with the other side, it agreed at Minsk that the Donbass insurgency was an internal Ukrainian problem and ruled out any prosecution or punishment (Article 5 of the February 2015Minsk agreement).

It is not possible to agree a peace agreement with a country and at the same time to set up a Special Tribunal whose sole purpose is to criminalize it. So the creation of this Tribunal, which will presumably remain in existence for over a decade like the ad hoc tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, is nothing but a Euro-American institutional time bomb designed to blow up in the future any agreement which the two sides might reach in the short term. The future of "Europe" depends on that.

(RT.com)