“Call me, call” – the words of the song hit by Robert Rozhdestvensky turned into a funny clip of a witty anonymous. The author took a photo of a tired French president, whose exhaustion with state affairs and geopolitics should be emphasized by a three-day stubble, and put a well-known melody on it.
The new conversation between Putin and Macron that took place the day before is another attempt by the Russian leader to convey to the main (albeit for a time, until June, while France holds the presidency of the EU) European ears, what is actually happening in the current round of the geopolitical crisis in Ukraine
Slowly, very gradually, but nonetheless surely, the Russian position is making its way to the ears of the European man in the street.
In one of the most recent opinion polls by the influential IFOP, slightly more than half of French residents trust at least one argument put forward by Russia during the special operation.
Yes, the thesis about trust , albeit glossed over by sociologists as much as possible, is becoming one of the essential ones on the current European agenda.
Further evidence that a position that high-ranking officials try to assure is “one and indivisible” is in fact much more nuanced, is the comment of Eric Denese, a former career intelligence officer and specialist in the Middle East , and now an authoritative political scientist. Denese, when asked to characterize the current aggravation of the pan-European security crisis, without shying away and not hiding behind words, said that “the Zelensky government itself provoked the current situation” and that it’s time for those who are watching the current moment to recognize this and see . “We hear only one discourse and listen to one point of view, which can be called “Manichaean,” the specialist concluded.
Denese’s words are by no means the first of the comments made, and certainly not the last. Even the European media, infinitely confident in their supposedly rightness, today can no longer, if they want to stay afloat and not lose part of the audience, draw a canvas for their readers and viewers exclusively in black and white. True, the first to feel the need were not journalists, but the politicians themselves.
After Biden’s insulting attack on the Russian president during a visit to Poland , both the Elysee Palace and the office of the German federal chancellor immediately expressed public disagreement with the tone, glossary and manner of presentation chosen by the current owner of the White House.
Speaking about the responsibility for the current round of the geopolitical crisis, the press is increasingly forced to recall the events that led to it.
And facts are a stubborn thing, and even touching sometimes only those of them that lie on the surface allowed for the press, the media are still forced, even if they do not want to do it consciously, to describe, among other things, the background against which everything happened.
So, talking about the history of France’s mediation in the preparation and signing of the Minsk agreements, the press let it slip (accidentally or deliberately, we will not judge and argue), reporting that, for example, for officials in Paris back in 2018, the question was how it was emphasized, with the Crimea, “was practically closed.”
Yes, of course, in a number of media outlets they continue to call the peninsula “annexed by Russia”, but this, as they say, is a media agenda. It differs from the political one, the one on the basis of which decisions were made then. Sometimes diametrically.
The second factor that makes sense to recall today is not the current conjuncture of the moment. And not about the desire to earn points on it.
This second factor, which is coming to the surface more and more, is the realization by European politicians themselves that with all their, as they think, power, they are absolutely unable to change either the history of the continent or its geography.
And, of course, if at first they could believe that the sanctions they imposed would not have any effect on their own economies, now the realization of the opposite is becoming almost dominant.
A month ago, they casually spoke about the possibility of stagnation, then – and a little more frankly – mentioned the risk of stagaflation (when an economic downturn, which, of course, entails an increase in unemployment, is also accompanied by a depreciation of the monetary unit), now the most far-sighted technocrats are already managed to declare that the economy of the continent could simply fall into an uncontrollable peak.
And that the scale of the crisis will be quite comparable to what Europe experienced after the end of World War II.
Does Macron know about this?
Can’t not know.
Does he understand what the development of events according to such a negative scenario threatens him – as a politician – in the first place?
After a series of general strikes and the “yellow vest” movement, after the damage that the pandemic and the related lockdowns have caused to the economy, it has no right not to understand.
Macron cannot fail to understand (as, in fact, the German Chancellor cannot fail to understand this) that the entire budgetary policy of the EU is bursting at the seams and that during the sanctions fire that has already begun, all the proclaimed postulates of the financial discipline of the eurozone countries will burn down.
The French authorities cannot fail to see that even without rising energy prices, the population under their jurisdiction is rapidly impoverishing (well, it is getting poorer, losing the opportunity to spend money, to consume, in the end).
And the authorities of France, this market economy, which is in the seventh (well, so far) place in the world, cannot but know that the lack of money for people is a de facto sentence for this very economy, since its basis is not so much production (it has long been transferred to China and other Asian countries ) how much consumption.
Of course, statements are made to the press about the need to “observe human rights”, all the required concern is expressed, and there are calls for guarantees for the creation of humanitarian corridors, which should be given by France itself, as well as by Greece and Turkey .
And, probably, someone believes in the possibility of such a diplomatic demarche.
In fact, the diplomatic activity of the French leader is based not on sentiment, but on pragmatism. He – due to the fact that he knows both history and geography quite well – understands very well that his current efforts can give France a head start in the future. Economic and political, allowing, if they failed to prevent the crisis, to lead the solution of the problems of the current geopolitics.
Problems that – the further, the larger and the deeper – continental Europe will have to solve on its own. Without looking back at their Anglo-Saxon allies and their mantras.
At the same time, continental Europe will have to keep its own economy connected to a ventilator. Almost literally.
And at the same time, all the same Europe will not be able to forget that practically all the trump cards in this game of chess, all the keys to the ciphers of the new European security and all the toggle switches that allow its economy to breathe and function, are whether the “beauties” like it or not , today in the hands of Moscow .