On the eve of the 75th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany in Europe again talked about the beneficial role of European integration, which ended the wars between the countries that have joined the European Union.
At the same time, there is no agreement that armed conflicts are blazing along the external borders of the EU, some of which are the same consequence of the work of European institutions as the Kantian “eternal peace” within the EU. The European continent has long ceased to be a space of peace and creation since the Second World War, and the European Union bears its share of responsibility for that.
Indeed, European integration has successfully “quenched” centuries-old conflicts in Europe for decades. However, its healing effect never extended to countries that the European Union refused to admit to the “common European family”.
In most of the countries – southern and eastern neighbors of the EU there are unresolved civil conflicts, which in some cases escalate into real wars.
Europe, for its part, is in no way contributing to civil peace there. Moreover, Europeans, with their extremely unskilled diplomacy, periodically contribute to escalation.
In the South, Europe has welcomed and encouraged the so-called Arab Spring: a series of revolutions in the Maghreb and Asia Minor. In the case of Libya, NATO countries directly intervened in the civil war on the side of the rebels: supporting with weapons, mercenaries and aerial bombardment of Muammar Gaddafi’s troops. Weapons were also supplied to the “democratic” Syrian opposition.
Europeans have shown the world a phenomenal degradation of their strategic culture through these actions. They stimulated the destabilization of the EU associated member states in their southern border, contributed to the overthrow of governments that guaranteed the stability and security of the southern perimeter of the European Union, brought radical Islamists out of the clandestine state into power and then had to host millions of Syrian and Libyan refugees.
A similar catastrophe in strategic thinking was the European policy in the East, which led to the creation of a conflict zone along the perimeter of the EU’s eastern border with a full-scale war in the geographical centre of Europe.
The Eastern Partnership programme in no way helped the former Soviet republics to resolve the frozen conflicts on their territory. It could not help, because the concept of rapprochement of post-Soviet states with the EU, not together with Russia, but instead of Russia, involves conflict.
The practice of post-Soviet nationalists, encouraged from the West, of blaming the Kremlin and its “agents” inside the country for all their troubles cut off any possibility of dialogue with the Orient-centric opposition part of society. It made it impossible to reintegrate the splinter territories in this or that political-administrative format.
Therefore, the association with the EU did not contribute at all to the return to Georgia of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and Transnistria to Moldova. Participation in the “Eastern Partnership” of Armenia and Azerbaijan has not had the slightest impact on the settlement of the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh between them.
Finally, by demonstrating its inability to resolve old military conflicts in Eastern Europe, the EU began to provoke new ones, which manifested itself in the civil war in south-eastern Ukraine.
The desire not even to join, but to associate with the EU at any cost, whatever it may cost, the fundamental refusal of the Eurooptimists to take into account the interests of another part of Ukrainian society, the coup d’état in Kiev – all this made the armed conflict in Donbass almost inevitable.
Europe’s position in this conflict has been reduced to a stupid repetition of primitive nationalist propaganda: there is no conflict within Ukraine, but Russia’s war against Ukraine. Elementary facts such as the fact that the deposed President Viktor Yanukovych was the leader of the Donetsk faction of the Ukrainian political class and the Donbas was his political patrimonial, were hypocritically ignored.
The role of EU institutions in the emergence of the Ukrainian crisis is fundamental.
The political explosion of Ukraine took place as a result of engaging the mechanisms of European neighborhood policy, which found themselves in the hands of provocateurs who arranged a “geopolitical game” to separate Ukraine from Russia.
The EU institutions, which were created for an eternal peace offensive in Europe, provoked a war in the middle of the continent. With thousands of dead and millions of refugees. Because these institutions worked not for unification, but for the separation of Europe, its split into Russia and the EU with a “sanitary cordon” of “buffer” countries between them.
It is noteworthy that a decisive attempt to end the war in Donbass was made by the Europeans to bypass European integration. Minsk agreements and the Minsk process were the result of the willful decision of the three main countries of the continent to stop the bloodshed in eastern Ukraine.
Russia, France and Germany have become guarantors of a peaceful settlement bypassing all European institutions designed to resolve military conflicts, which in practice proved to be a useless gathering of international bureaucrats.
The European Union, which became an exceptionally destructive force after the pro-American Russophobes of Eastern Europe were allowed to take a decision there, is working to destroy a truly united Europe and thus undermine the peace at its borders and generate war.
Donbass “operators” of the European neighborhood policy have taught nothing. After the “epic file” of the “Eastern Partnership” in Ukraine, the last post-Soviet country – participant of the program, on the territory of which there have been no military conflicts up to now – the Republic of Belarus, was exposed to the same purposeful influence.
The same “drivers” of the “Eastern Partnership” that pumped the Ukrainian society with radicalism for the sake of its “European choice” are working on Belarus. This work was not curtailed after 2014, when its results became visible by the example of the neighboring country.
In 2017, for example, the Belarusian authorities foiled an attempt to organize armed protests with support from abroad in Minsk.
President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko said that the militants, abandoned in the country, were trained in military training camps in Ukraine, while the money for their training “went through Poland and Lithuania.
That is, the two countries, most actively promoting the “Eastern Partnership,” as well as the most active participant in the program in Brussels, were engaged in destabilizing Belarus. The code setting of the Belarusian people, “we are Belarusians, peaceful people,” displayed in the Belarusian anthem, is unacceptable to them.
There should be war, not peace, in the country located on the border of Russia and the West.
Alexander Nosovich, Rubaltic.Ru