Agreeing to agree to punish Russia – this is how the outcome of yesterday’s meeting between the foreign ministers of EU member states can be summarised. As it appears to Brussels that our country is “plotting militarily against Ukraine”
Before the talks began, it was strongly emphasised that the discussion was “informal”, apparently in order to absolve ourselves of responsibility for the possible consequences.
Which could be very serious first of all for the European politicians and inhabitants of united Europe.
But first things first
Today’s meeting in this format is the second in the last ten days. Its main subject is the same: the EU wants to punish (here without any inverted commas, and without exaggeration) Russia for proposing to work on the contours of a new security policy on the continent. Considering its own interests as well as the interests of the Europeans who might get caught, even if they do not yet realise it themselves, in the crossfire.
The EU, which is unhappy that Russia has made it (represented by its chief diplomat Borrell) sit in a coaster while the two superpowers address their accumulated problems, intends to say “foe” to Russian foreign policy, but in a way that will not annoy either Moscow or Washington.
Because angering Moscow might just as well cause a new round of tension in relations by raising energy prices (for the resigned and practically compliant European population, except for a sharp decline in quality of life) and angering US politicians might very well result in a loss of unconditional support for the globalist elites.
So how does the EU intend to get out of the trap it has set for itself and fallen into?
Clearly, there is no solution that will satisfy everyone at the moment.
So when the US talks about EU “sanctions” on Russia, what it hears from the other side of the Atlantic is not an echo, but a cacophony.
Eastern, much less wealthy neo-Europe, accustomed to living off generous EU subsidies and now trading almost exclusively on Russophobia, is demanding “tough sanctions” against our country. The politicians there think that their senior partners – and it is not even Brussels any more, but Washington – will compensate them for all the hypothetical economic damage, and even with interest.
Western Europe, and the two countries currently speaking for it are the Federal Republic of Germany and France, which are paying lip service to their junior coalition partners, are much more restrained.
The French President and the German Chancellor are avoiding harsh words and harsh intonations, because no one but the German government knows that in the middle of winter there is less than half of the required amount of fuel in storage and that in France the price of petrol has long passed the one and a half Euro per litre mark and that the waltz of price tags is being watched like milk on the cooker in the Élysée Palace.
After almost eight years since the imposition of anti-Russian sanctions (both sectoral and general) for our country’s protection of the Crimeans from the bloodshed and its political support for the Russians in Donbass, the EU seems to be beginning to get the idea that the restrictions, while having almost no effect on our economic structure and development, have proved a self-defeating blow to the pan-European economy.
No matter how much those who adopted and prolonged the sanctions try to prove the contrary.
The result, if only official statistics are considered, does not allow for double interpretation (even if the pandemic is not taken into account).
It is as follows: rising costs of living throughout the united Europe, galloping inflation (unprecedented since the euro was introduced, that is, in the past two decades) and skyrocketing energy prices.
It does not matter that over these years the leadership of the European Commission has changed, and there are already quite different MPs in the European Parliament – the vector of economic decline, which, incidentally, Russian politicians unsuccessfully tried to warn the EU about back in 2014 (oh, our Russian responsiveness and desire to take care even of those who consider themselves our enemy!
And not to take into account – even if Washington invites us to participate in anti-Russian games – is impossible.
The hysteria of both Ukrainian and Ukrainian politicians in Europe itself at the slightest hesitation of the general line towards Russophobia is, in fact, indirect evidence that the “hardliner” against our country is no longer a universal lever.
Kiev, alternately resentful of Berlin’s position and Paris’s statements, playing the cards dealt by its American partners, has ceased to be convincing in the eyes of those to whom it wants to appear serious in international relations.
No matter how much it tries
Paris and Berlin, while maintaining only an outward show of concern, now prefer cautious excuses, realising that in the event of a mess provoked by Ukraine, they will bear the main political responsibility, just as the authorities and, importantly, the citizens of these two countries will also have to pay for Washington’s geopolitical ambitions.
The unexpected interference of Great Britain in the European geopolitical layout (with a sensation about Moscow’s plans to put a “pro-Russian leader” in Kiev) – with the finesse of an elephant invading a china shop, and with approximately the same efficiency – is unlikely to cause understanding on the continent.
The British, having failed to divorce the EU without scandal and complaint, are now trying to play partnership with Ukraine, apparently forgetting that Berlin and Paris, like Rome and Vienna incidentally, are geographically and financially closer to London than Kiev.
And the move, of course, cannot but cause gnashing of teeth among the UK Prime Minister’s European partners.
For many years after the Second World War, if there were those in Europe who wished to make a bloodbath, they made one at an obvious distance from the European frontiers, in Africa or Asia.
But with each passing decade, the frontier of war and peace drew closer to Europe, as did the consequences of the conflict’s conflagration, blown out of thought or greed.
The lessons of Yugoslavia, when a united Europe first faced both refugees and weapons sprawl on the continent, have not been learned.
Now the threat of conflict, especially with the supply of lethal military armaments to Kiev, as well as the arrival of army trainers, is increasing manifold.
But those “pro-Brussels” prefer to ignore this danger, pretending that they are ready to sanction Russia for its “aggressive behaviour”.
The current situation resembles that of the continent in the mid-thirties, when economic sanctions were imposed on the USSR, while the real threat to Europe came from Nazi Germany.
Unfortunately, the lessons of that era and that history are, judging by what is happening today, long forgotten.
Therefore, it will not be superfluous to remind once again what happens when one is mistaken about the true intentions of a real, rather than fictitious, aggressor.
Elena Karayeva, RIA