Is The EU's New Army The Final Nail In The Project's Coffin?

  It doesn't take much brain to understand that there is something very wrong with the current direction of the European project. We could call it: "Double down or die!" But how far can you go down that road before you actually "die"? Well, since they won't stop, we're about to find out. 

  The financial markets are already squeaking. Soon it will be the people. The billion Euros will have to come from somewhere!

Is The EU's New Army The Final Nail In The Project's Coffin?

The EU army idea is actually more complicated than you might think...

It used to be quite a common thing for people in polite society to say “imagine if women ran the world…we would certainly have less wars, right?”. Wrong. Women are running the world, well, at least the EU world. Three women to be precise. Ursula von der Leyen, EU commission boss, Annalena Baerbock, Germany’s foreign minister and of course, last but not least, the EU’s own foreign affairs chief, Kaja Kallas. And what do all three of these women have in common, apart from having names which sound like sexually transmitted diseases? They all want war.

In line with spectacularly poor decision making right from the beginning of the Ukraine war, with probably Russian sanctions at the top of the list of stupid ideas, the EU has only one way forward in Ukraine. At whatever cost, it must come out at least not looking like it lost. The EU project is very much like an old man on a bike moving very slowly along a Dutch cyclists’ path. The fear from the elites in the EU is that if he falls off the bike, he will never get back on. The constant worry from top EU figures is that if the EU loses its momentum with press coverage and relevance in general, then a pause – any pause – could be devastating. This, you might be surprised to hear, is what EU officials themselves confided in me when I was based in the Belgian capital. Such an expression gives you an idea of how little confidence the EU has in itself as a worthy, stable long-term project.

And so the madness escalates now to such a point where we are actually looking at draining the wallets and purses of our own very poorest people to fund the ultimate EU sex toy going: an EU army.

The idea of an EU army is not new. As a notion, it’s as old as the hills as hard core federalists in Brussels have been arguing for the EU to have its own army for at least twenty years, but until now failed. The main reason for the idea not getting off the ground is that it created too many new, worrying political problems for the EU to wrangle with. In a nutshell, there was always a risk of a new political crisis that an EU army would create as member states argue over which country gets to run it, which nationality is its head, where it would be based and how politically would it be run, based on what decision making structure? (existing EU council, EU commission, member states themselves in a new set up via defence ministries). The concern was always that Germany would have too much power and then this would open an old wound about the country re-arming and rekindling memories of 1939. And we all know where that led.

The EU army idea is actually more complicated than you might think. One of the reasons why it never got off the ground despite several serious attempts is that both the EU and member states are both confused and lack confidence about such a bold plan. They are literally concerned the idea could blow up in their faces. It’s what Americans call ‘blowback’. No, that’s nothing to do with the German foreign minister or even innuendo. It’s a military term for when a gun throws back energy in your face when it discharges and wounds whoever is holding the weapon.

For a long time the EU itself wanted the army to be very much controlled by Brussels but knew that the big guns would not wear that. And so, for them, like those in the European Commission it was about giving power away to a new body, a new layer of EU power, as though there aren’t enough institutions in Brussels which already sap away power from member states. The attitude was somewhat self-defeating. ‘If we (the commission) don’t create this entity, then Germany may well do it on their own anyway, and then we will lose the power’ is the mentality in Brussels. Indeed, Germany for at least a decade has been toying with the idea of having its own EU army, which creates a real headache for Brussels as it gives crucial power to one member state who many would argue already wields quite enough in the first place. The German parliament a few years ago leaked a document suggesting a new international army which Germany would run, which would be sent to troubled hotspots around the world and would be joined by a few allies who would play a supporting role. 

The problem with this is twofold.

One, a good number of Germans would be very unhappy about his and believe that Germany should never be allowed to return to its former military power of the 1930s. 

Secondly, under such a set-up, the EU would suffer considerably as it would throw a spotlight on its own weakness and underline how ineffective Brussels is, given that it has no military edge and that one member state has gone rogue with a geo-military policy. 

And so two scenarios present themselves: 

1. Germany being the main player in an EU army created and apparently run from Brussels – at least in appearance; or

2. Berlin running its own EU army which isn’t called an EU army but the rest of the world will consider it to be one. 

Neither of these scenarios really does the EU any favours.

But it would seem this is what these three ladies have their eye on.

Which is why they have put so much emphasis on 800 billion euros being found among EU member states contributions, so that it will have an EU badge and its centre of power would be Brussels. France, Germany, Italy, Poland and the UK would be part of such a new, shiny EU pillar of NATO. And yet, it is Britain’s role, considered crucial, which will dilute the EU dream of it being entirely a Brussels wet dream project. In many ways, the reaction from these three women follows last year’s conference set up by Macron to create a coalition of EU member states, plus the UK, for big foreign policy ideas which would run parallel to the EU’s foreign thingy in Brussels. Defence spending and sending an EU army – which included the UK and Turkey – to places where the EU felt it could confidently flex its muscles was part of the whole plan.

For these three wicked witches to conjure up such a Macbethian plan to slay Macron and his big idea is worrying on a Shakespearian level, to say the least. It’s hard to say at the moment of writing whether it’s a real plan, as it’s already been blocked by the Netherlands, or it’s a plan on paper designed to impress Trump at a critical moment of negotiations. Does the EU believe that these talks could go on for months, perhaps even a year or more and so therefore to send a few hundred tanks to Kiev would only bolster both Zelenksy’s and the EU’s credibility as players when neither are actually even sitting on the reserves’ bench? Possibly. Have the tanks even been built? Nope.

One witty pundit for RT, a former anchor, opined quite amusingly about the role of the UK, suggesting that London’s ability to be a global military player is out of touch with reality.

“The British defense secretary claims that the need for a weapons shopping spree actually comes from a place of deep, inner hippie-ness” Rachel Marsden wrote. 

“The Ukrainians want peace. We all want peace. And as defense ministers, we have been discussing and we are working to strengthen the push for peace, John Healey said, probably itching to get back home to squeeze into some bell bottoms and smash the bongo drums”.

It reminded me of the 1980s satire puppet show in the UK called ‘Spitting Images’ which cruelly depicted Ronald Reagan muttering “We want peace…a piece of Nicaragua, a piece of El Salvador”.

And what’s wrong with bell bottoms?

The Great Pyramid’s Mystery Unveiled: AI Illuminates Egypt’s Cosmic Cathedral

For 4,700 years, the Great Pyramids have towered over Egypt’s desert east of Cairo, silent sentinels of a lost truth, their purpose buried in sand and time. Now, artificial intelligence pierces that veil, resurrecting the Ancient Egyptians’ intent from the depths of history. Their voices echo once more, and the monuments blaze again—not as mere tombs, but as a radiant testament to the cosmology of the Western world’s first great civilization.

In 450 BCE, Herodotus, the Greek historian, trekked to Egypt, quizzing priests who claimed the Great Pyramid rose in 20 years with 100,000 hands. His tale calcified into “fact”—yet by the time of Herodotus, Egypt’s ancient wisdom was dust. Those priests couldn’t read the old hieroglyphs, their lore a shadow of the Fourth Dynasty’s glory. It took 2,200 years—until Champollion cracked the code in 1824—for Khufu’s cartouche to whisper from the stones: “I am the builder.” Beyond that name and a few scattered scribbles, the pyramids stayed mute.

Visitors across millennia gazed at the long corridors and King’s Chamber, nodding sagely: tombs, of course. Vast sepulchers for pharaohs whose power demanded grandeur. The question wasn’t “why,” but “when?” Egyptology locked in the answer—or so it seemed.

1. Piecing Together the Chronology

Stare at the Great Pyramid, and awe gives way to curiosity: how old is this titan? Without texts, its age was a riddle—until Khufu’s cartouche lit the way. From there, Egyptology played connect-the-dots: each pharaoh, his pyramid, a tidy timeline. Mystery solved, pharaohs decoded.

Here’s the roll call:

Step Pyramid of Djoser, Pharaoh: Djoser, Third Dynasty, Date: c. 2670–2650 BCE Details: Saqqara, 60m high, six stacked mastabas—a rough draft in stone.

Pyramid of Meidum, Pharaoh: Sneferu, Fourth Dynasty, Date: c. 2613–2600 BCEDetails: Meidum, 92m high (now rubble), a steep 52° flop—Sneferu’s first swing.

Bent Pyramid, Pharaoh: Sneferu, Fourth Dynasty, Date: c. 2600–2590 BCEDetails: Dahshur, 105m, twists from 55° to 43° mid-build—a lesson mid-flight.

Red Pyramid, Pharaoh: Sneferu, Fourth Dynasty, Date: c. 2590–2589 BCEDetails: Dahshur, 105m, steady 43°—the first smooth pyramid, Sneferu’s triumph.

Great Pyramid of Giza, Pharaoh: Khufu, Fourth Dynasty, Date: c. 2589–2566 BCEDetails: Giza, 146m high (once), 230m base, 51.5° slope—masterpiece unveiled.

Pyramid of Khafre, Pharaoh: Khafre, Fourth Dynasty, Date: c. 2570–2532 BCE Details: Giza, 136m high (plateau-lifted), 215m base, 53°—no compromise.

Pyramid of Menkaure, Pharaoh: Menkaure, Fourth Dynasty, Date: c. 2532–2500 BCE Details: Giza, 65m, 103m base, 51°—small but deliberate.

Pyramid of Userkaf, Pharaoh: Userkaf, Fifth Dynasty, Date: c. 2498–2491 BCE Details: Saqqara, 49m—fading echo, sun temples rise.

Pyramid of Unas, Pharaoh: Unas, Fifth Dynasty, Date: c. 2375–2345 BCE   Details: Saqqara, 43m—texts bloom, stones shrink.

Pyramid of Pepi II, Pharaoh: Pepi II, Sixth Dynasty, Date: c. 2278–2184 BCE Details: Saqqara, 52m—last gasp, Old Kingdom’s dusk.

2. Cracks in the Chronology

This list looks neat—until you squint. Oddities leap out like desert mirages:

    - Why do early pyramids (Djoser, Meidum) clash in style, while Giza’s trio sync?

    - Why does Sneferu cram three pyramids into one reign—obsession or experiment?

    - Why scatter them—Saqqara, Meidum, Dahshur, Giza—not clustered like the Valley of the Kings?

    - And why shrink after Khufu’s giant—Menkaure’s a dwarf, Userkaf a footnote?

The rhythm’s bizarre: Djoser’s lone stab, a gap, Sneferu’s triple burst, Giza’s trio in tight succession, then a slow fade—centuries of shrinking afterthoughts. It’s no random tomb spree. It’s a curve: a shaky start, a frantic climb, a cosmic peak, then basking in the glow.

3. The Orion Key: A Celestial Blueprint

Enter Robert Bauval’s Orion Correlation Theory (1990s)—the Giza trio isn’t three tombs, but one monument: Orion’s Belt in stone. Khufu (230m base) mirrors Alnitak (magnitude 1.7), Khafre (215m, plateau-boosted) shines as Alnilam (1.69), Menkaure (103m) fits Mintaka (2.23). Their sizes aren’t budget cuts—they track stellar brightness. Southeast tilt? Orion’s exact slant. No skimping—just Egyptians sculpting the sky. This isn’t a pharaoh flex; it’s a constellation carved.

 

4. The Stone Clue: Weathered Witnesses

Zoom in on Giza’s blocks, and another secret winks: uneven weathering. After 4,700 years—digging, blasting, chipping—wear’s expected. But why do neighboring stones differ so wildly? Same limestone, yet one’s pitted, another’s smooth—as if some waited decades under desert sun (0.1–0.5 mm/year erosion) while others rose fresh. Time’s tattooed on the rock, hinting at a deeper tale.

5. Egypt’s Manhattan Project: A Cathedral for the Ages

What if Giza’s trio wasn’t a rush job, but a 200-year odyssey—a cathedral-like quest to etch Orion on Earth? Picture it:

    - First, they learn—Djoser’s mastabas (2670 BCE), a proof-of-concept stack.

    - Sneferu iterates: Meidum’s, 52° collapse, Bent’s 55°-to-43° pivot, Red’s 43° win—tech honed in a generation.

   - Then, Giza rises—stones quarried a century early (c. 2700 BCE), weathering in wait, hauled by a civilization ready at last.

This wasn’t three kings racing. It was Egypt’s Manhattan Project: a vision clear from the start, tools lagging behind. They mastered math (pi, golden ratio), engineering (internal ramps, Houdin’s genius; Grand Gallery “elevator” for 50-ton granite), and writing (from tags to cartouches)—all to freeze their cosmos in stone. Djoser tests, Sneferu refines, Giza triumphs—Khufu, Khafre, Menkaure just stamp the finish.

6. The Truth in the Glow

Pharaohs slapped names on it—Khufu’s cartouche, human vanity—but these aren’t tombs. No sarcophagi clutter the Great Pyramid; Khafre and Menkaure’s burials are side notes. Like Java’s Borobudur locking Buddhism in rock, Giza traps Egypt’s cosmology—Orion (Sah), the horizon (Khut), in eternity. A colossal endeavor where early pharaohs launched what they’d never see finished, built not for death, but for the ages.

But why Orion? 

The answer lies in the heart of Ancient Egyptian belief. The Egyptians didn’t just pick Orion—it was their cosmic lifeline. Called Sah in their language, Orion’s Belt wasn’t just a pretty pattern; it was the soul of Osiris, the god of rebirth, striding across the sky. The Pyramid Texts (Unas, c. 2350 BCE) chant: “Sah rises in the east, Osiris lives.” Giza’s trio—Khufu, Khafre, Menkaure—mirrors those stars not for decoration, but to anchor Egypt to eternity. The Nile mirrored the Milky Way, and Orion guided souls to the Duat, the underworld. Carving it in stone wasn’t just flexing—it was freezing their universe in place, a map for gods and kings to navigate forever. Why Orion? Because for Egypt, it wasn’t just sky—it was salvation.

That’s the next chapter. For now, AI’s lens reveals Giza not as graves, but as Egypt’s soul—shining once more, 4,700 years later.

By Philippe Chaniet 

(Article corrected by Grok-3 and Kimi with the accuracy of the data checked with Grok-3 )

 

"BREAKING NEWS!" by Canadian Preper (Video - 39 mn)

   A few days later, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the trump Putin talk was a failure. War in Ukraine is ramping up, as well as ALL the other conflicts in the world. Israel, Iran, Taiwan... 

  It may be brinkmanship but then again, as time goes on, it looks more and more like the real deal.