Just two days ago, I wrote an analysis on the European Union’s alleged “fears” that the United States would push it toward dissolution.

Brussels is not very fond of President Donald Trump (mildly speaking) and is now openly blaming him for an attempt to facilitate and accelerate this process by strengthening ties with Eastern European countries that aren’t exactly keen on submitting to the EU’s diktat.

This supposedly includes Italy, Austria, Hungary and Poland, all of which would “align more closely with Washington DC“.

Although still unconfirmed by any official sources or statements, this sent shockwaves across the troubled bureaucratic dictatorship, with various EU officials slamming Trump. It goes so far that some have called Trump “an enemy of Europe”.

In contrast, he thinks that neoliberal extremism (the ruling ideology in Brussels that makes anyone remotely sane sick to their stomach) is a death sentence for Europe, just as it is (or was “before him”) in the US.

However, Trump’s “messianic” ambitions to “save the West” might be too late, as the EU could actually dissolve itself before he gets the chance to do anything significant. Namely, the most powerful member states are now mulling the revival of an old idea – the so-called “two-speed EU”. Germany stands at the helm of this initiative, which is widely unpopular among most smaller member states.

Berlin is proposing the creation of “a core group of six major economies” that would “bypass the bloc’s traditional consensus-based decision-making”.

Germany insists this is to supposedly “accelerate defense cooperation and industrial competitiveness amid mounting geopolitical pressures”. According to Defense News, German Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil and his French counterpart Roland Lescure “jointly convened finance ministers from Poland, Spain, Italy and the Netherlands on January 28 for a video conference to establish what is being called the E6 format of the six leading European economies”.

“Now is the time for a

In a letter of invitation to his colleagues, which Defense News claims to have obtained, Klingbeil reportedly “presented a four-point agenda that makes defense spending a priority alongside a Savings and Investment Union, strengthening the Euro and securing critical raw materials”.

“Europe has to become stronger and more resilient,” Klingbeil wrote, adding: “Work towards this goal needs to be sped up in all dimensions. Continuing as before is not an option.”

He also calls for “enhanced collaboration on defense spending” and “urges making defense a key focus in the next EU multiannual budget”, insisting that “turning defense into an engine for growth” is essential for European economies. In other words, the troubled bloc is not only fully dropping the act that it’s a “purely economic union”, but is also openly resorting to militarism and a crawling NATO-ization of the “old continent”.

Klingbeil described the January 28 call as “a kick-off meeting”, adding that he “hope(s) to have a follow-up meeting on the sidelines of the next EUROGroup meeting [a conference of Eurozone finance ministers]”. In simpler terms, the EU’s most powerful member state seems to have made up its mind and has no intention to consult anyone else. As previously mentioned, the “two-speed EU” concept is certainly not a new idea, but it’s always been deeply unpopular with those who’d be left out. However, it’s gaining traction as a way to exclude “noncompliant” members (such as Hungary and/or Slovakia) from the collective decision-making process. The claim that it’s all about “defense” is just a red herring, a pretext used to cement Brussels’ dictatorial powers.

In addition, with the Trump administration “ditching Europe”, as defined in America’s latest, the EU can always say that it “needs to fend for itself in the face of evil Russian threat”. Needless to say, the idea that a “two-speed EU” can work is truly contentious, as it postulates that individual member states (particularly the “non-privileged” ones) would willingly renounce their sovereignty and be left out of the decision-making process while having to accept the diktat of the much more powerful E6. Combined with the ongoing militarization, this would turn the troubled bloc into a combined military-bureaucratic dictatorship. Such a monstrosity wouldn’t exactly give smaller countries the thrills to stay (let alone join in).

When asked about this, German officials resorted to damage control, “reassuring” others that “the format would remain flexible and possibly open to additional participants”. In other words, this means that members would effectively rejoin this “more elite EU” despite already being in the “old-school” bloc.

As noted earlier, this would inevitably leave out countries like Hungary and/or Slovakia, as their governments are not only refusing to bow and accept the diktat from Brussels, but are also strengthening ties with the US while maintaining at least a working relationship with Russia. Thus, if the “two-speed EU” leaves several countries geopolitically “stunlocked”, they might as well just exit the troubled bloc, because there’s simply no point in staying (especially if they’re to serve as cannon fodder in a suicidal war with Russia).

According to various sources and maps, the E6 includes Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Poland and the Netherlands.

While these are the most powerful EU economies and essentially “core” members (funnily enough, Belgium is not included even though Brussels is there), sidelining others in Eastern Europe is not exactly the wisest of decisions, as it would effectively cut off the rest of the bloc from these top continental powers.

For instance, with Hungary alone out, Romania and Bulgaria would be “left stranded” (which would be further cemented by Slovakia’s potential exit).

Then there are also other members, such as Austria and Czechia (to say nothing of rather pathetic provincial satellite states like Slovenia and Croatia).

Either way, the Trump administration doesn’t really need to do anything except just sit and wait.

*

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).