We agreed to agree to punish Russia – this is how you can briefly define the results of yesterday’s meeting of the heads of the foreign policy departments of the EU member states. Because it seems to Brussels that our country is “making military plans for Ukraine.”
Before the start of the talks, it was strongly emphasized that the discussion was of an “informal nature,” apparently also in order to absolve oneself of responsibility for possible consequences. Which can be very serious, first of all, for the European politicians themselves, and for the inhabitants of a united Europe. But first things first.
This meeting in this format is the second in the last ten days. Its main theme does not change: the EU wants to punish (here and without any quotes, and without exaggeration) Russia for offering to work on the contours of a new security policy on the continent. Taking into account both their own interests and the interests of the Europeans, who can fall, even if they themselves do not yet understand it, under distribution.
The European Union, dissatisfied with the fact that Russia sent him (in the person of the chief diplomat Borrell) to sit on a side chair and wait in the hallway while the two superpowers solve the accumulated problems, intends to say his “fa” to Russian foreign policy, but in a way that does not anger Moscow nor Washington.
Because by angering Moscow, it is possible, which is good, to cause a new round of tension in relations, which will be expressed in an increase in energy prices (for the submissive and already agreeing with almost everything, except for a sharp deterioration in the quality of life, of the European population), and having angered American politicians, very likely to lose the unconditional support of the globalist elites.
How does the European Union intend to get out of the trap that it set for itself and fell into it itself? It is clear that at the moment there is simply no solution that would suit everyone.
Therefore, when the US talks about EU “sanctions” against Russia, they hear from the other side of the Atlantic not an echo, but a cacophony.
Eastern, much less wealthy neo-Europe, accustomed to living on generous EU subsidies, trading today almost exclusively in Russophobia, demands “tough sanctions” against our country. The politicians there think that their senior partners – and this is not even Brussels, but Washington – will compensate them for all the hypothetical economic damage, and even with interest. Western Europe, and two countries are now speaking on its behalf – this is the Federal Republic of Germany and France, while verbally supporting the junior coalition partners, speaks out much more restrained.
The French president and the German chancellor avoid both harsh words and harsh intonations, because who, if not the German government, knows that in the dead of winter in the country’s fuel storage facilities there are now less than half of the required reserves, and in France the price of motor gasoline has long passed the bar in one and a half euros per liter, and this waltz of price tags, like milk on a stove, is already being watched in the Elysee Palace.
Almost eight years after the introduction of anti-Ru-ssian sanctions (both secto-ral and general) for the fact that our country protected the Crimeans from bloodshed and expressed political support for the Russians in the Donbass, the EU, apparently, is beginning to realize that there are practically no restrictions without affecting the structure and development of our economy, turned out to be a crossbow for the pan-European economy.
No matter how hard those who adopted and extended these sanctions try to prove the opposite. The result, if we consider only official statistics, does not allow for a double interpretation (even if we do not take into account the pandemic).
And it is the following: the rise in the cost of living throughout the united Europe, galloping inflation (which has no precedent since the introduction of the euro, that is, in the past two decades) and soaring energy prices.
And it doesn’t matter that over the years the leadership of the European Commission has changed, and completely different deputies are sitting in the European Parliament – the vector of the decline in economic activity, which, by the way, Russian politicians unsuccessfully tried to warn the EU back then, in 2014 (oh, this is our Russian responsiveness and desire to take care even of those who consider themselves our enemy!), now it is impossible not to notice.
And do not take into account – even if Washington invites you to participate in anti-Russian games – it is impossible.
The hysteria of both Ukrainian and Ukrainian-speaking politicians in Europe itself at the slightest hesitation in the general line on Russophobia is, in fact, indirect evidence that the “tough guy” has ceased to be a universal lever in relation to our country.
Kiev, alternately resenting the position of Berlin, t-hen the statements of Paris, playing the marked cards that its American partners threw at it, has ceased to be convincing in the eyes of those to whom it wants to appear as a serious party in international relations. No matter how much you try.
Paris and Berlin, maintaining only an external face of concern, today prefer cautious excuses, realizing that in the event of a mess provoked by Ukraine, they will have to bear the main political responsibility, as well as pay for Washington’s geopolitical ambitions, the authorities will also have to pay for Washington’s geopolitical ambitions, and, importantly, the residents of these two countries.
The unexpected intervention of Great Britain in the European geopolitical alignment (with a sensation about Moscow’s plans to plant a “pro-Russian leader” in Kiev) – with the grace of an elephant invading a china shop, and with about the same efficiency – is unlikely to cause understanding on the continent.
The British, unable to divorce the European Union without scandals and claims, are now trying to play a partnership with Ukraine, apparently forgetting that Berlin and Paris, like Rome and Vienna, by the way, are geographically and financially closer to London than Kiev.
And this step, of course, cannot but cause a gnashing of teeth among the Europ-ean partners of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. For many years after the Second World War, if there were those in Europe who wanted to make a bloody mess, they brewed it at an obvious distance from European borders, in Africa or Asia.
But with every decade, the border of war and peace drew closer to Europe, as did the consequences of the inflated – through thoughtlessness or greed – the fire of the conflict. The Yugoslav lessons, when united Europe first encountered both refugees and the proliferation of weapons on the continent, were not learned.
Now the threat of conflict, especially with the supply of deadly military weapons to Kiev, as well as with the arrival of army instructors, is increasing significantly. But those “sitting in Brussels” prefer not to notice this danger, pretending that they are ready to sanction Russia for its “aggressive behavior.”
The current situation is reminiscent of the one that was already on the continent in the mid-thirties of the last century, when economic sanctions were imposed against the USSR, while the real threat to Europe came from Nazi Germany. Unfortunately, the lessons of that era and that history, judging by what is happening today, have long been firmly forgotten. Therefore, it will not be superfluous to remind once again what happens when they are mistaken in the true intentions of a real, and not a fictitious aggressor.