Europe is an Achilles with not just one but two vulnerable heels.
By cutting off oil supplies from the Middle East, Russia can paralyze almost all of Western Europe’s industries and transportation systems at a moment’s notice.
Such a measure is becoming increasingly feasible for two reasons. First, Soviet naval power is steadily growing in the Mediterranean, enabling Russia to eliminate or severely disrupt oil transport. Second, Iraq’s coalition government, which includes communists, has expropriated the Iraq Petroleum Company, which now operates with Russian technicians. Russia is now responsible for the placement and distribution of oil. In addition, Soviet penetration, which is increasingly intense in Iran, is jeopardizing not only the situation of that country’s government but also that of the oil sultanates of the Persian Gulf. Thus, all the oil in the Middle East could soon fall into Soviet hands.
This is one of Europe’s “Achilles’ heels.” The other is the military situation.
Without oil, Western Europe’s war effort is reduced to almost nothing. But there is worse. Despite already having spread across the Mediterranean, Russian military power in northern Europe has reached alarming levels. The Soviets outnumber Western Europe in air power by seven to one, and their naval power is four times that of Western Europe.
Thus, Russia is encircling Western Europe from both the north and the south.
“But,” the reader may ask, “what about the balanced reduction of forces?”
I reply that, at the moment, this is being negotiated only between the East and the West in the central, vital sector (and therefore neither in the north nor in the south).
This explains why Russia already has a plan to invade Western Europe, which involves occupying the continent and the entire Atlantic coast within two weeks. In another two weeks, it would neutralize all resistance in the occupied zone. The threat of a nuclear attack would paralyze the United States.
Europe would have little to oppose this invasion with, as NATO has only 11,000 tanks, while the Warsaw Pact has 17,000 tanks.
The most likely scenario is that, facing this imminent invasion, Western Europe would allow itself to be “Finlandized” without offering military resistance.
In other words, governments would retain the appearance of sovereignty while, in reality, they would be dependent on the Kremlin’s whims. A situation almost identical to that of the satellite countries.
It goes without saying that Russia would take advantage of this privileged situation to gradually impose communism on the “Finlandized” countries.
* * *
Faced with this set of catastrophic news and predictions, the reader will be startled and ask me what I am basing this on.
Almost all the data I cite comes from two articles published by Mr. C. L. Sulzberger in The New York Times and O Estado de São Paulo on June 17 and 18. I have added only a few universally known facts.
Mr. Sulzberger is a well-known journalist and a member of the powerful family that owns the New York newspaper. I disagree with him on everything, but the reader and I know it is one of the world’s most important newspapers.
Furthermore, in his articles, Mr. Sulzberger cites sources such as the U.S. Secret Service and the report “Europe and the Mediterranean,” recently approved by the Western European Union.
Finally, it should be noted that the Yankee journalist is far from being (like me) an anticommunist committed to alerting world opinion to the Russian danger. Therefore, he is exempt from the “toadish” suspicion that he is exaggerating the Russian danger to provoke a reaction from the West.
That is why, without indignation, Mr. Sulzberger notes in one of his aforementioned articles the following catastrophe: “Western Europe is increasingly vulnerable to Soviet control of energy supplies, a dependence that Moscow can exploit for political advantage. … “The shift in Europe’s strategic balance is becoming permanent as economic ties with the Soviet Union deepen.””
The American columnist’s serenity has a reason. He says: “Moscow seeks a pan-European security conference that would confirm existing borders and open the way to negotiations on mutual force reductions.” For Mr. Sulzberger, hope remains alive amid this darkness. He believes that “The new atmosphere of negotiation between Washington and Moscow makes a sudden crisis less likely.”
All this clearly shows the reader that the New York Times editor cannot be suspected of trying to create an anticommunist uproar.
Why am I addressing these issues here?
I refuse to admit that all is lost, because, by the grace of God, I belong to the category of men who fight courageously, even with the most meager resources, against the most powerful adversary. Above all, I believe in Divine Providence and know that through Our Lady’s intercession, the good will never be abandoned in their fight against evil. Thus, it is necessary to alert the good immediately. No greater disservice can be done to the West than to let it sleep in the face of mounting danger.
I do not know exactly on what basis Mr. Sulzberger asserts that if the catastrophic scenarios he mentions were to materialize, it would happen only in “several years.”
This means there is still much resistance to overcome. Among these is—in our times of psychological aggression—the resistance of men of fiber throughout the world.
It is everyone’s duty to encourage this resistance by recognizing the danger in time and fostering an environment of faith and courage.
For Mr. Sulzberger, as we have seen, the danger does not exist because one can trust the Russians’ peaceful intentions.
Those in the free world who share his candor are a negligible minority. This minority will not prevail if those who do not believe in Soviet good faith awaken. That is why I wrote this article.
