Facing Global System Change | Prime Minister Viktor Orbán of Hungary

It is a cliché that war is the continuation of policy with other means. It is important to add that war is the continuation of policy from a different perspective. So war, in its relentlessness, takes us to a new position from which to see things, to a high vantage point. And from there it gives us a completely different – hitherto unknown – perspective. We find ourselves in new surroundings and in a new, rarefied force field. In this pure reality, ideologies lose their power; statistical sleights of hand lose their power; media distortions and politicians’ tactical dissimulation loses its power. There is no longer any relevance to widespread delusions – or even to conspiracy theories. What remains is the stark, brutal reality. 

 

 » The war in Ukraine is our red pill. And now we must talk about reality. « 

Viktor Orbán - July 27, 2024.

[...] A change is coming, that has not been seen for five hundred years. This has not been apparent to us because in the last 150 years there have been great changes in and around us, but in these changes the dominant world power has always been in the West. And our starting point is that the changes we are seeing now are likely to follow this Western logic. By contrast, this is a new situation. In the past, change was Western: the Habsburgs rose and then fell; Spain was up, and it became the centre of power; it fell, and the English rose; the First World War finished off the monarchies; the British were replaced by the Americans as world leaders; then the Russo–American Cold War was won by the Americans. But all these developments remained within our Western logic. 

 

 Viktor Orbán meets President Xi Jinping - July 8, 2024.

This is not the case now, however, and this is what we must face up to; because the Western world is not challenged from within the Western world, and so the logic of change has been disrupted. What I am talking about, and what we are facing, is actually a global system change. And this is a process that is coming from Asia. To put it succinctly and primitively, for the next many decades – or perhaps centuries, because the previous world system was in place for five hundred years – the dominant centre of the world will be in Asia: China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, and I could go on. They have already created their platforms, there is this BRICS formation in which they are already present. And there is the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, in which these countries are building the new world economy.

FM Peter Szijjarto accuses EU of disrupting oil supplies from Russia - August 24, 2024.

I think that this is an inevitable process, because Asia has the demographic advantage, it has the technological advantage in ever more areas, it has the capital advantage, and it is bringing its military power up to equilibrium with that of the West. Asia will have – or perhaps already has – the most money, the largest financial funds, the largest companies in the world, the best universities, the best research institutes, and the largest stock exchanges. It will have – or already has – the most advanced space research and the most advanced medical science. In addition, we in the West – even the Russians – have been well shepherded into this new entity that is taking shape. The question is whether or not the process is reversible – and if not, when it became irreversible. I think it happened in 2001, when we in the West decided to invite China to join the World Trade Organisation. Since then this process has been almost unstoppable and irreversible.

 

[...] What is the European response to global system change? We have two options. The first is what we call “the open-air museum”. This is what we have now. We are moving towards it. Europe, absorbed by the US, will be left in an underdeveloped role. It will be a continent that the world marvels at, but one which no longer has within it the dynamic for development. The second option is strategic autonomy. In other words, we must enter the competition of global system change. After all, this is what the USA does, according to its own logic. And we are indeed talking about 400 million people. It is possible to recreate Europe’s capacity to attract capital, and it is possible to bring capital back from America.

Quoted from:
Cabinet Office Of The Prime Minister (July 27, 2024) - Lecture of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán 

at the 33rd Bálványos Summer Free University and Student Camp.

Putin wants Ukraine Ceasefire on Current Frontlines | Reuters

MOSCOW / LONDON, May 24, 2024 (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin is ready to halt the war in Ukraine with a negotiated ceasefire that recognises the current battlefield lines, four Russian sources told Reuters, saying he is prepared to fight on if Kyiv and the West do not respond.

 PUTIN READY TO STOP WAR FOR NEGOTIATED CEASEFIRE RECOGNIZING CURRENT FRONTLINES - 

two presstitutes at Reuters are claiming. They are citing "four anonymous Russian sources", 

and are warning Putin is ready to fight as long as it takes if West refuses.

MOSCOW, May 24, 2024

Three of the sources, familiar with discussions in Putin's entourage, said the veteran Russian leader had expressed frustration to a small group of advisers about what he views as Western-backed attempts to stymie negotiations and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy's decision to rule out talks. 

 

War is diplomacy by other means. 

And it is the winner on all battlefields dictating the terms of 'peace'.

» Russia is ready if the West wants to fight for Ukraine. «

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov

MOSCOW, May 13, 2024

 

"Putin can fight for as long as it takes, but Putin is also ready for a ceasefire – to freeze the war," said another of the four, a senior Russian source who has worked with Putin and has knowledge of top  level conversations in the Kremlin.
 

♫  He, like the others cited in this story, spoke on condition of anonymity given the matter's sensitivity. ♫ 

 

Under Hibatullah Akhundzada's leadership, the Islamic Republic 

was dissolved and the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan was re-established.

KABUL, August 15, 2021

 

Under General Abdourahamane Tchiani's leadership, the Republic of the Niger
resisted ECOWAS' invasion threats, kicked out all French and American
military, and called in Russian troops.

NIAMEY, May 3, 2024

 

Under Abdul-Malik Badruldeen al-Houthi's leadership, Ansar Allah overthrew
the previous regime in 2015, and took full control over the Republic of Yemen. 

SANA'A, May 24, 2024

Russia Needs to Change Its Nuclear Doctrine | Sergey A. Karaganov

So there is the option of our nuclear strike on Ukraine.

Sergey A. Karaganov: Such an option theoretically exists. But I am completely against it. People there have been deceived, but in many ways these are our people. However if we do not change our nuclear doctrine, then NATO can use nuclear weapons against Belarus, which is absolutely unacceptable to us. This is why we should quickly change our outdated, idealistic, and largely carefree doctrine regulating the use of nuclear weapons, which is based on the principles and postulates of the past. And we should also redeploy our armed forces. Some steps are already being made in this regard. Our doctrine states that we can only use nuclear weapons in the event of a mortal threat to our state and statehood.

 » Many of the Western elites lost their sense of self-preservation. Their intellectual level has fallen sharply 

– especially in Europe. The situation is somewhat better in the United States. There seem to exist remnants 

of a strategically-minded political class. But obviously they are not running the show. «
Sergey A. Karaganov - May 9, 2024.

But we have already deployed our nuclear weapons in Belarus. It should be used there long before such a mortal threat arises. The enemy must know that we are ready to use nuclear weapons in response to any attack on our territory, including bombing. It is up to the President to make the final decision. But we need to untie our hands. We must understand that we and all of Europe are doomed to a long war unless we clearly change our policy in this area. And we will also be doomed to exhaustion and maybe even defeat. But most importantly, the world will be doomed to the Third World War. We must eliminate this threat. This is our national mission. And secondly, this is the mission of the Russian people as the savior of humankind, which we always have been.

 

 May 9, 2024.

I understand that there will be no nuclear war with America. They love themselves too much. But anything is possible with Europe, which has completely gone off its rocker. In what order should we hit them? Poland, Germany, Great Britain, and the Czech Republic are obviously the first countries that come to mind. Well, France, too, of course.

I really would not like things to go that way. Yes, we will send them to hell. But by doing so we will pave the way for huge moral losses for ourselves. Nuclear weapons are God’s weapons. It’s a scary choice. But God punished Sodom and Gomorrah, which had got mired in madness and profligacy, with a rain of fire. I pray to God that we do not have to take such a step. But it’s about saving the country and the world. You correctly named Poland and Germany. The Baltic countries and Romania could be next. But, I repeat, God forbid!

  May 9, 2024.

 

Why Romania?

Because a large flow of military cargo goes to Ukraine through them. They have set up training centers. They host a large contingent of American troops [...] We must ultimately make sure that Europe can never threaten us again. Well, someday we will cooperate with some European countries and even be friends with them. We do not reject the best European roots in ourselves, and we will take them with us along our main road to the South and the East, to Greater Eurasia.

What about Great Britain?

It does not pose a direct military threat to us. They just habitually befoul, but that’s all.

 

Quoted from:

Sergey A. Karaganov (May 3, 2024) - American Globalism is a Disease.
Interview originally published in Argumenty Nedeli newspaper (№17, 914). 

 

» Why is it OK for America to drop two nukes on Japan to end their existential war? 

I thought it was OK. So Israel, do whatever you have to do to survive as Jewish state! « 

US Senator Lindsey Graham - Mai 9, 2024.
 

 

» If Ukraine falls, it will be a catastrophe for the West! It will put an end to the Western hegemony! 

And we will have no one to blame for it but ourselves. «

Ex UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson - May 9, 2024.

See also:

Sergey A. Karaganov (May 9, 2024) - Geopolitical Paradigm Shifts and Coping with Psychopaths.

The Kremlin's Last Warning | Martin Armstrong

Dmitry Konstantinovich Kiselyov (born 1954) is a major TV host, and his latest warning to the West is to issue an ultimatum to the UK and the US. On Russian TV, Kiselyov warned [on April 29, 2024] that if a Western power deploys soldiers on the ground in Ukraine to ‘inflict a strategic defeat on Russia,’ it will result in Armageddon. Of course, what I find stunning is how the Western press characterizes him as “Vladimir Putin’s propagandist,” and the implication of those words is that they are not a real threat. 

 

» Then the very moment would come. ‌«

RS-28 Sarmat [dubbed 'Satan II' by NATO] is Russia's most capable hypersonic thermonuclear intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). With a range of 18,000 km and traveling 27 times the speed of sound, Sarmat can extinguish any target/country/enemy anywhere on the planet within minutes with one single strike. Including the US - May 1, 2024.

The press takes NOTHING said from Russia seriously – it’s all a joke, just propaganda. [...] Kiselyov is not going to say this on national TV without the Kremlin actually delivering this warning. He said:  “If NATO countries send their troops into Ukraine in order to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, then the very moment about which Putin once said, “Why do we need the world, if there is no Russia in it?” would come.‌”

» Russia can turn the US into radioactive ash. This is not propaganda. ‌«

Dmitry Kiselyov, delivering the Kremlin's last warning - April 29, 2024. 

Russia has indeed threatened to ‘turn the US into radioactive ash’ and ‘sink Britain’ below the waves. While some NATO leaders have been more circumspect, this need for war to justify the defaulting on debt that is the real factor behind the West’s desire for war will have far greater consequences than these fake world leaders who are all hand puppets of the Neocons. Kiselyov added: “This is not propaganda.” Yet in the West, the Neocons are saying this is a bluff, and Putin will never use nukes so the West can completely destroy Russia – their hated enemy for decades, without a shot fired.

Quoted from:

Martin Armstrong (May 1, 2024) - Will Russia Push the Button?

 

» There seems to be a conspiracy in the British Isles. Why threaten boundless Russia with nuclear weapons while sitting on a small island? The island is so small that one Sarmat missile is enough to sink it once and for all. This is just one launch, and there is no England, once and for all! Another option to plunge Britain into the abyss is the Russian Poseidon. There is no way to stop this underwater drone. It has a warhead with a capacity of up to 100 megatons. The explosion of this thermonuclear torpedo off the coast of Britain will raise a giant wave up to 500 meters high. Such a squall of water is also a carrier of extreme doses of radiation. Passing over the British Isles, it will turn what may be left of them into a radioactive desert. ‌«

Dmitry Kiselyov - May 2, 2022.

Construction of Hell in the Modern Era | Alexander Dugin

When did everything go wrong? In the era of the great geographical discoveries. By crossing the forbidden boundary of the Pillars of Hercules, Western Europe committed an act of irreversible transgression. This was fatal. The place of Atlantis is at the bottom.

 » The cycle of hell construction is almost complete. «

[...] Five hundred years ago, Western Europe began to systematically lose its sanity. And it went mad because once having begun to go mad, eventually you will go mad. Thus, four anomalies were formed.

1. Atheism and materialism in the scientific worldview, based on nominalism and a pathological Protestant ideology, were prevalent. Even then, it could have been concluded that the West was entering an Antichrist mode, with all things Western and modern irreversibly marked by it. The British pseudo-Empire marked the beginning of hypertrophied Atlanticism. The Anglo-Saxons embodied the biblical Leviathan. In the twentieth century, the baton was passed to the USA, but the dominance of the sea civilisation is England’s legacy.
2. The Middle Ages and its Indo-European tri-functional ideology, Catholicism, and Empire were rejected and ridiculed, replaced by a form of capitalism that was pathological in all respects. Ideologically, it later diverged into liberalism (the main form of mental degeneration), nationalism, and an inverted version that acknowledged its foundational principles — socialism. Any ideological movement within the system of capitalism was doomed to mimicry and collapse. Capitalism is absolutely totalitarian. As Deleuze showed, capitalism culminates in schizophrenia.
3. The philosophy of the modern era split (without warning) into an eccentric continuation of the classical tradition and into destructive perversions in solidarity with materialism and the externalism of science. This caused systematic confusion — a semantic shift in interpretations. Thought struggled in the nets like a deer, sometimes breaking through. But where there was breakthrough and where agony, no one reliably knew; often everything appeared to be strictly the opposite.
4. Culture began to transition into civilisation (according to Spengler), cooling down but not without excesses — from time to time, an unpredictable genius discerned the essence of the thickening darkness and pierced it with a shining needle. Overall, culture was deliberately sliding into hell.

Russia suddenly found itself at war with all this — without wishing, understanding, preparing, or expecting it at all. Russia was placed by an invisible hand in the position it now finds itself. Now, against all odds, we must — institutionally! — respond to all the challenges of the civilisation of the Antichrist, including the challenge of technology. All the electronic devices with which the West has equipped humanity turned out to have a catch — through them, it turns out, someone unknown collects information about everyone in order to then rule unchallenged.

 

 On April 4, the day of the 75th anniversary of the founding
of NATO, lightning struck the torch of the Statue of Liberty.

What people hide the most are their sins. They are of interest to Big Brother. He records them and lets them in when needed. Techno-dependence is the most perfect tool of the devil and his civilisation. We rejoice in digitalisation — we help the devil rule us. But what are oceans of sins if not a field of madness? The cycle of hell construction is almost complete. In its way — only our desperate Special Military Operation. Well, how do you propose we interpret it?

Quoted from:
Alexander Dugin on X
April 05, 2024

 

See also:
Michael Millerman (2019) - Introduction to Alexander Dugin's 'Fourth Political Theory' (video)

The Baltimore Bridge Moment

Priceless. A gem for historians.

500 Years of Western Dominance - What Comes Next | Glenn Diesen

Felix Abt: A great European religious war and the first pan-European conflict over superpower status came to an end in 1648. After 30 years of devastating wars and chaos, especially on German soil, with millions of deaths and shattered economies, the Peace of Westphalia brought a new, rules-based order to Europe, as the Western political class would call it today. This included the inviolability of borders and non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign and equal states; it is regarded as a milestone in the development toward tolerance and secularization. How did this affect the new powers that emerged afterward and their quest for hegemony?

Glenn Diesen: The lesson from the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) was that no one power could restore order based on hegemony and universal values, as the other states in Europe would preserve their own sovereignty and distinctiveness by collectively balancing the most powerful state. This was evident when Catholic France supported Protestant Sweden to prevent the dominance of the Catholic Habsburgs. The Peace of Westphalia in 1648 gave birth to the modern world order, in which peace and order depend on a balance of power between sovereign states. The Westphalian system prevents hegemony as other states collectively balance the effort of an aspiring hegemon to establish economic and military dominance, and universal values are rejected to the extent they are used to reduce the sovereignty of other states.

» The Westphalian system prevents hegemony. « 

The 1648 peace treaty between the parties in the Thirty Years' War established the Westphalian system.

 

The principle, known as the Westphalian principle of sovereignty, prohibits interference in the internal affairs of another state, and every state is equal before international law, regardless of its size. Thus, every state has sovereignty over its territory and its internal affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers. But when the European colonial powers used violence to impose their will on other continents, they violated this ideal. Was this the beginning of this principle’s demise?

 

The Westphalian system should in principle be based on sovereign equality for all states. However, it originated as a European security order that later laid the foundation for a world order. Under the original Westphalian system, the Europeans claimed special privileges and the principle of equal sovereignty for states did not apply to everyone. Sovereignty was deemed to be a right and a responsibility assigned to “civilized peoples”, a reference to the Europeans as white Christians. The international system was divided between the civilized and the barbarians. There was one set of rules for the Europeans in the civilized “garden”, and another set of rules when the Europeans engaged with the so-called despotic barbarians in the “jungle”. The interference in the internal affairs of other peoples and the development of vast empires was framed as the right and the responsibility of civilized states to guide the barbaric peoples towards universal values of civilization. This responsibility to govern other peoples was termed the “white man’s burden” and the “civilizing mission”.

 » The gardeners have to go to the jungle. «

Josep Borrell's universal mission.

In our current era, we have abandoned the civilized-barbarian divide, but we have replaced it with a liberal democracy-authoritarian divide to legitimize sovereign inequality. The West can interfere in the domestic affairs of other states to promote democracy, invade countries to defend human rights, or even change the borders of countries in support of self-determination. This is the exclusive right and a responsibility of the West as the champions of the universal values of liberal democracy. As the EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell explained: “The gardeners have to go to the jungle. Europeans have to be much more engaged with the rest of the world. Otherwise, the rest of the world will invade us”.

International law in accordance with the UN Charter defends the principle of sovereign equality for all states. The so-called “rules-based international order” is based on sovereign inequality, which introduces special privileges under the guise of universal liberal democratic values. For example, the West’s recognition of independence for Kosovo was a breach of international law as it violated the territorial integrity of Serbia, although it was legitimized by the liberal principle of respecting the self-determination of Kosovo Albanians. In Crimea the West decided that self-determination should not be the leading principle, but territorial integrity. The US refers to liberal democratic values to exercise its exclusive right to invade and occupy countries such as Iraq, Syria and Libya, although this right is not extended to countries in the jungle.  

» The so-called “rules-based international order” is based on sovereign inequality, 

which introduces special privileges under the guise of universal liberal democratic values. «

In 1945 fifty countries established the United Nations System. With the help of this supra-national governance

system the Anglo-Frankish-Zionist-Dönmeh-Wahhabi-Takfiri elites of the UK, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the US and

some others, expected to secure their hegemonies beyond the foreseeable demise of traditional colonialism. 

The Bretton Woods conference, World Bank, IMF, nuclear bombing of Japan, dividing Korea 

and creating the State of Israel in Palestine are early show cases of what Pax Americana and UN are all about.

[...] The Ukrainian conflict is essentially an extension of American geopolitics, which aims to carry out Mackinder’s aforementioned stanza, “He who rules Eastern Europe rules the world.” What are your thoughts about it?

Preventing Germany and Russia from controlling Eastern Europe means that much of the Eurasian continent becomes landlocked. US control over Eastern Europe implies that Russia can not bridge Europe and Asia, but rather becomes an isolated land-locked region at the dual periphery of Europe and Asia.

Brzezinski outlined the strategy for developing and preserving US global primacy, which relies on the age-old wisdom of divide-and-rule. Brzezinski wrote that the US must “prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and keep the barbarians from coming together”. Historically, the British and the Americans have worked to prevent Germany and Russia from coming together as it would form an independent pole of power. Hegemony requires conflict between Germany and Russia, as Germany becomes a dependent ally and Russia is weakened. This logic is also applied to why it is beneficial to perpetuate tensions between the Arabs and Iran, or between China and its neighbors. The US has been very concerned about the economic integration between the Germans and Russians, which is why the US was so hostile to the Nord Stream pipelines and most likely was behind the attack on these pipelines. 

 

 Anka Feldhusen, a fine example of a German Neonazi apparatchik of the 21st century.

March 22, 2023.

 

 Wehrmacht 2.0 south of Kiev. 

There will be hell to pay.

March 22, 2024.

The problem is that the world is no longer Western-centric and by pushing Russia away from Germany, the US has pushed Russia towards China – a technological and industrial power much greater than Germany. In the mid-19th century, the British fought against Russia in the Crimean War with the explicit purpose of pushing Russia back into Asia, where it would remain technologically and economically backward and stagnant. NATO’s war in Ukraine is a repeat of the efforts to push Russia back into Asia, although this time Asia is much more dynamic than the West. The failure of the West to adjust our grand strategy to this new reality has been a mistake of immeasurable proportions. We have not subordinated Russia, rather we ended Russia’s 300-year-long Western-centric policies in which Moscow looked to the West for modernization.

What is driving this stunning anti-Chinese obsession in the United States against a country that upholds the principle of non-interference in other countries, that used its mighty navy only for trade and not for gunboat politics when it was a superpower in the past, and that follows the millennia-old concept of “Tianxia” (天下), which literally means “everything under heaven”, that is, an inclusive world full of harmony for all?

China does not threaten the US, but it threatens US dominance as the foundation for the unipolar world order established after the Cold War. The US is currently attempting to weaken China through economic warfare, convincing its allies to decouple from the Chinese economy, and knocking out Russia in Ukraine as a vital partner of China. If the US fails to achieve its objectives, then it will likely stoke conflicts between China and its neighbors to make the neighbors more dependent and obedient, and also create instability for the Chinese that will bleed it of resources. The ideal would be greater tensions between India and China, as India would have to make itself more reliant on the US and it would be an important ally to weaken China. If all fails, then the US could also fight an indirect war through a proxy similar to the way they are using Ukrainians to fight Russia – by for example pushing for Taiwan’s secession. Besides securing its supply chains and building a military for deterrence, China should prioritize resolving its disputes with India as any friction with China can be exploited.

» This is a Westphalian system with Eurasian characteristics. « 

Since 2009 BRICS is establishing a Multipolar World Order based on Westphalian principles and controlled by the 

Eurasian great powers China, India and Russia. Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates joined BRICS

on January 1, 2024. To date 15 more countries have formally applied to join.

Finally, in your new book you say that a new Westphalian world order is reasserting itself, albeit with Eurasian characteristics. Can you explain this in more detail?

We are returning to a Westphalian system based on a balance of power between sovereign states. However, the former Westphalian system was based on sovereign equality among the Western powers while the “barbarians” or “despots” outside the West were not deemed to be qualified for the responsibility of sovereignty. It was a dual system of collective hegemony of the West, with sovereign equality between the Western states. In the new Westphalian system, there are several powerful states that are not Western, with China as the leading economy in the world. The Eurasian powers such as China, Russia, India and others are developing the economic foundations for this system with new technologies, transportation corridors and financial instruments. The Eurasian powers are more prepared to include the Global South as sovereign equals. The Eurasian powers reject the so-called “rules-based international order” based on sovereign inequality, as Western dominance should not be legitimized by a civilized-barbarian or liberal democracy-authoritarian divide.

The Western powers over the past centuries have had an inclination for dominance and empire by controlling limited maritime corridors. Russia’s Eurasianism in the 19th century was a hegemonic strategy by dominating the Eurasian landmass through land corridors, although under the multipolar distribution of power the Russians do not have the capability or intentions to pursue hegemony. Instead, Eurasian integration entails moving from the dual periphery of Europe and Asia, to the center of a new Eurasian construct. Even China as the leading power does not have the capability or intention to pursue hegemony. Countries like Russia are content with China being the leading power, although they would not support China if it demanded dominance and hegemony. The Chinese demonstrate that they are not attempting to limit Russia’s economic connectivity with other states to make itself the only center of power. In the Global Civilization Initiative, the Chinese are also advocating for respecting civilizational differences and that all states have their own path to modernity, which implies that China is not claiming to represent universal values that legitimizes interference into the domestic affairs of other states. The West assumed that the Russia-China partnership was a “marriage of convenience” and that they would clash over influence in Central Asia, but this never happened because neither side demanded hegemony. Instead of sabotaging each other’s relations with the region, China and Russia harmonized their interests in Central Asia. China, Russia, India and other Eurasian powers have different visions and interests in terms of Eurasian integration, but they all need each other to realize their goals and pursue prosperity. Hegemony is not an option. This is a Westphalian system with Eurasian characteristics.

Quoted from:

500 Years of Western Dominance: Is it Coming to an End and What Comes Next?

Felix Abt talks with Glenn Diesen. In: Eastern Angle - March 22, 2024.

 

See also:

Glenn Diesen (2024) - The Ukraine War & the Eurasian World Order. 

Zbigniew Brzezinski (1997) - The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives.

Carl Schmitt (1950) - The Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of the Jus Publicum Europaeum.