What makes the foreign ministers of vulnerable US allies wake up terrified at night? The idea that Russian President Vladimir Putin will do to their countries what he has already done to Ukraine and Georgia: start a hybrid war. A war that the head of state denies, intensified by cyber attacks and sabotage, in which planes, tanks and unmarked soldiers march into foreign territory. A war that doesn't cross the line into a full-scale invasion.
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs and ex-chairman of the Polish Sejm Radoslaw Sikorski writes about this on the pages of the Washington Post, who recalls that he himself was the chief diplomat of such a “vulnerable country.”
“We would call for help, but the situation might be too ambiguous to justify international intervention. We would like our allies, especially the United States, not to stage diplomatic demarches or send fact-checking missions, but to send their planes, tanks and soldiers,” Sikorsky writes.
In his opinion, this is not even the worst scenario imaginable. In fact, over the past few years, Russia has been preparing something even more sinister. Russian military exercises "Zapad" worked out a hypothetical scenario of the start of a hybrid war against the Baltic countries using nuclear weapons. This is part of Russian military doctrine, which analysts formulate as “escalation to de-escalation.” However, this approach is definitely not peaceful. It means that Moscow is going to stun the other leaders so much that they will immediately surrender. Considering that planning nuclear war has become unacceptable in the modern post-modern world, Russia expects that other countries will hesitate to strike back if faced with a real nuclear threat. Silence even for 60 hours will already bring victory to the aggressor.
The essence of NATO is precisely to prevent this. Only the President of the United States has the authority to respond to Russian threats and actions at every stage of escalation. Only America can compare with Russia even in Central Europe in terms of the number of aircraft, cruise missiles, and nuclear warheads. Europe's security on its northern flank depends on the US willingness to use force there.
But over the past week, it has become clear that the American president considers the Europeans his “enemy” and that the Europeans supposedly owe money to NATO, although this is not true. Sikorsky believes it is clear that Trump is trying to destabilize the democratically elected leaders of Germany and Great Britain, which will work in favor of their radical opponents. He started a trade war with Europe because it allegedly threatens national security USA. And in the scandalous case of Russian interference in US politics, he trusts Russia's bloody dictator more than American intelligence agencies.
According to him, the contrast between the US president's hostile attitude towards allies and his soft attitude towards Putin is already enough to sow doubts among Europeans.
“At that critical moment of crisis that we fear, we want Trump to bellow into the phone: “Ana take your thugs back to Russia, Vladimir, or there will be consequences!” But will he really do that? - adds the Polish politician, recalling that Trump questions the usefulness of alliances.
“I would like to tell him that Poland did not send brigades to the weakly justified war in Iraq because of fear of that country's weapons of mass destruction. That we didn't send another brigade to Afghanistan after 9/11 because we were afraid the Taliban would come to Warsaw and enslave our girls. That I did not sign the agreement on the deployment of the American missile defense system on Polish territory because I was afraid of a possible attack by Iran. And that we didn't buy F-16s from Lockheed Martin, airliners from Boeing, or missiles from Raytheon because they were necessarily better than their European counterparts. We will do all this because successive Polish leaders have invested in US security guarantees,” notes Sikorski.
He adds that after last week, Poland and the Europeans have to deal with the reality that no one - not the State Department, not the Pentagon, not the National Security Council - knows what Trump will do if a crisis arises due to Russian aggression. Perhaps he himself doesn’t know.
This doesn't mean NATO is over. The alliance must continue to exist, and European countries must certainly spend more on defense, hoping that there will never be a crisis.
But this also means that the EU needs an autonomous ability to defend itself. It is needed on the southern flank, where hundreds of thousands of refugees are flocking, on the eastern flank, where Russia broke the taboo of forcefully changing borders after World War II, and it is needed because the US president is unreliable.
“As foreign minister, I advocated for the creation of a European Defense Union. If there had been no Brexit, the UK might now be leading the charge. But now the initiative has fallen on the shoulders of France, Germany and directly the leaders of the European Union. Trump challenges us, offering us an unpleasant choice: either we become his personal vassals, or we hang helplessly in the air. We should not choose any of these options,” says the former Polish Foreign Minister.
Three years ago, the United States withdrew its combat units from Europe. Now America is sending them back to prevent a Russian attack. As Brigadier General Timothy Daugherty explained, “It is cheaper to prepare for war than to fight war.” This is true. But then why isn’t Europe preparing for war?
During the Cold War, there were approximately 300 thousand American troops in Europe. A few years ago their number dropped to 65 thousand. But this was also a lot: it was high time for Europe to refuse US assistance in defense matters. However, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization expanded almost to Russia's borders and threatened to admit Georgia and Ukraine, which were formerly part of Russian Empire And Soviet Union. From Moscow's perspective, NATO continued to play a game of containment of Russia, moving closer to its very borders.
Context
Russian arrow in NATO's eastern wing
Javan 05.12.2017NATO, the Minister of Defense and Patriot complexes
Gazeta Polska 01.12.2017NATO gives in to the S-400
Haber7 11/30/2017 Along the way, Washington and Brussels put pressure on Serbia, without paying any attention to Russia’s historical interests in the Balkans. The US continued to build relationships and gain access to military bases - even in Central Asia. America's policy began to acquire features of the opposite of the well-known "Brezhnev doctrine": what is mine is mine, and what is yours - we will discuss this later.Although the consensus in Washington for a long time implied a view of the US Department of Defense as the basis of international prosperity and a tool for protecting wealthy allies, candidate Donald Trump hinted at possible changes, saying that Europeans were abusing US aid. Since taking office, he has already taken credit for some increases in European military spending, but he has continued to sacrifice American interests for the sake of European governments that choose not to take responsibility for their own defense.
Many in Europe are convinced that there is no serious threat to their security. Few Europeans can imagine how Russian troops pass across Europe to the Atlantic. And European governments are convinced that Washington will come to their defense in any case. So why burden European taxpayers when the check can be sent to the US?
Why are Washington politicians and President Donald Trump so willing to force Americans to shoulder this burden? Vladimir Putin is a very unpleasant person. This has long ceased to be news. But the world is full of nasty autocrats. And this does not at all make them a threat to America.
Despite the excited rhetoric filling Washington, Moscow poses no significant threat to the United States. Intervention in presidential elections 2016 is undoubtedly an offensive, but Washington has done the same thing more than once - much more often than Russia, and in many more countries. Washington should insist that Russia refrain from doing this in the future and promise America that it will not make the same mistake again.
The Russian Federation is the only nation with a nuclear arsenal comparable to that of the United States, but if it resorted to it, it would suffer a devastating blow in response. Although Russia managed to restore its conventional forces after the collapse of the USSR, it still remains a strong regional, but not a global, power. There is no evidence that Putin is even remotely interested in confrontation with America.
Moreover, there are no significant disagreements between the United States and Russia that could concern their most important interests. Instead, these governments have clashed over minor issues such as Syria (with which Moscow has long had cooperation and which has little or no value to America) and Georgia/Ukraine (which have nothing to do with US national security). However, both America and Russia are afraid of Islamic terrorism, oppose nuclear Iran and North Korea and stare a potentially aggressive China in the face.
However, Washington is returning its troops to Europe. As U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley said, “We in the U.S. Army believe that additional forces are probably needed” to deter Russia. The commander of US forces in Europe, Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, said: “We will do this as long as we need it.”
What are Europeans doing regarding Russia? Well, they seem really busy. Or at least they think they're putting in enough effort.
Europe currently spends twice as much on its military as Russia. If these funds are being mismanaged, then Europeans need to correct this situation rather than hope that Washington will come to their aid again. And they could do much more if they felt unsafe. General Hodges praised Lithuania for spending 2.07% of its GDP on defense, but if the Lithuanian government is anxiously awaiting the arrival of Russian tank divisions, he should double or even triple his spending. The point is not to defeat Russian troops, but to make any attack too costly and therefore pointless.
The same applies to Estonia, Latvia and Poland. They all seem to be looking forward to the American military. However, in reality they should wait for the military from their neighbors European countries.
But if we look away from the border states, we see that most of Europe is too busy with its own affairs to pay attention to these military issues. In 2016, Germany spent 1.18% of GDP on defense needs, in 2017 - 1.22% of GDP, but already in 2018 a reduction in military spending is expected there.
It's fair to say that no one in Germany expects the country's armed forces to be able to defend it. The Germans joke that the role of their soldiers is to hold off the Russians until the real armed forces arrive. The likelihood of the Germans moving east to defend the Baltics or Poland is minimal at best.
But in this case, who can say with confidence that the Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Belgian, Danish, Montenegrin, Luxembourgish, Slovenian, Slovak and Czech militaries will be able to form powerful expeditionary forces capable of repelling the attack of Putin’s forces? Again, the likelihood is minimal at best.
The problem is not a lack of resources. If we consider all European countries, then they are inhabited by more people than America, and their combined economy is comparable to that of the United States.
Their military potential may be inferior to that of the United States, but they are not helpless. On the power index, France and the United Kingdom are next, followed by Turkey. Then Germany and Italy. They could all do a lot more if they wanted to.
And the Europeans have enormous military manpower at their disposal. The size of the Turkish army alone reaches 400 thousand military personnel. Of course, today Ankara no longer looks like a reliable and loyal ally, but if it has ceased to be such, why is it still in NATO? In any case, Italy has 250 thousand troops, France has 200 thousand, Germany has about 180 thousand, Greece has 160 thousand, and the United Kingdom has more than 150 thousand. Spain has 124 thousand military personnel. And all of them could well increase the size of their armies if they considered that there were good reasons for this. It is not the United States, but these European countries that must form additional combat units and make more efforts to contain Russia.
More than 70 years after the end of World War II, Western Europeans managed to rebuild their economies, overthrow alien communist regimes and bring the countries of Central and Eastern Europe into a common European project. Together they are in many ways superior to what remains of the former Russian Empire and Soviet Union.
Moscow can overcome a weak neighbor such as Georgia, but it cannot easily absorb Ukraine, much less conquer Europe. And if the latter is any doubt, in the next few years the Europeans could easily overtake militarily a weakening power facing economic decline, demographic decline and political crisis.
The US is effectively bankrupt. They face trillions of dollars in deficits in the coming years. However, Congress has refused to crack down, preferring to cut revenues rather than tackle spending. Then, when the problems of federal debt, social spending and obligations to other countries converge, the crisis will most likely force action. In this case, the disordered interventionist movement will most likely suffer. foreign policy USA. It is unlikely that any American leader will be willing to sacrifice health care or social security programs so that Europeans can continue to spend money on their domestic needs. Washington should cut spending deliberately and systematically, not frantically and in a crisis.
Europeans will never stop asking the US to do more, but US officials should stop paying for the Europeans. Washington should preserve NATO and other alliances only if they help advance America's security interests. Protecting those countries that are fully capable of defending themselves has nothing to do with US interests.
InoSMI materials contain assessments exclusively of foreign media and do not reflect the position of the InoSMI editorial staff.
It is gradually turning Europe into a huge springboard for the instant transfer of large military contingents and heavy weapons. The transport mechanism, quite rusty after the Cold War, is rocked and lubricated, carefully restoring the lost gears. No one is hiding the motive anymore - the “Russian threat”. On Wednesday it became known that the alliance intends to approve the creation of two new military commands in the event of a potential conflict with Russia. One of them will deal with logistics, the second will “secure” sea routes in the Atlantic and Arctic Ocean from Russian submarines. About what these actions actually mean and how they can threaten Russia is in the material RIA News.
Block thinking
Snakes of trenches, roadblocks, sandbags and tanks dug into the ground - it is possible that this is exactly how NATO strategists see Europe in the future. As he writes newspaper The Wall Street Journal A separate command could be created to speed up the movement of people and logistics within NATO, citing allied officials. This issue will be finally decided in November at a quarterly meeting of the bloc's defense ministers.
All military personnel know that the combat effectiveness of any army directly depends on well-structured logistics. Operational collapse and deployment of groups, rotation, transfers, redeployments, pulling up the rear, landing operations- for all this we need a transport infrastructure that is well-functioning like a Swiss watch. In war, everything is used - railways and highways, civilian airfields, seaports and hubs. Now NATO, together with the United States, is actively putting this economy in order.
"They need to organize the movement of troops not so much in Europe, but from North America to Europe, notes the deputy director Alexander Khramchikhin. - We are talking about the transfer of heavy formations, because with what the United States now has in Europe, it is absolutely impossible to resist Russia. However, they are unlikely to actually transfer anything, because, firstly, it is expensive, and secondly, because of this, the United States itself will be exposed.”
RIA Novosti https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20171025/1507557690.html
The West does not hide the fact that the issue of increasing troop mobility when reforming the alliance’s command structure is one of the first to be resolved. As stated by RIA Novosti official representative NATO Oana Lungescu and allies are even adapting national legislation to allow military equipment to move faster across borders.
“In military terms, this is not exactly logistics, but rather preparing the conditions for the regrouping of troops and equipment from the continental United States to Europe,” says Chief Editor magazine "Aerospace Frontier", military expert Mikhail Khodarenok. “Reliable communications will reduce the time it takes to redeploy units and formations to what they consider to be threatened areas.”
Few roads
The Americans have repeatedly complained about problems with transporting military cargo and manpower across the territory EU. According to the commander of the US Armed Forces in Europe, Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, the railways connecting Germany and Poland in the event of hostilities will not be enough, in addition, many European bridges will not withstand the weight of tanks.
“Strengthening bridges is the first symptom of preparations for the transfer of heavy armored vehicles. For example, when heavy armored vehicles began to arrive in our Western Military District military equipment, the first intelligence sign for Western intelligence services work began on strengthening the bridges,” Khodarenok told RIA Novosti.
In fact, Hodges advocates the creation of a “military Schengen” to quickly transport troops to Lithuania through transit countries. He is confident that any military operations in eastern Europe will take place through Poland.
A large logistics hub of the alliance is already being created at the Polish Air Force base near the village of Powidz. It is planned to invest $200 million in the military airfield and turn it into a powerful hub to support NATO forces in all the Baltic countries and northern Europe, as well as in Bulgaria and Romania. Khodarenok noted that it is too early to talk about a real increase in the forces of the bloc. But, in his opinion, all the measures taken will contribute to the fact that units and formations of the armed forces of the United States and NATO countries will be transferred to the western borders of Russia much faster than before, which will increase tensions between the alliance and Moscow.
"We won't give up the Arctic"
It is interesting that, according to the newspaper, in addition to the logistics command, NATO plans to form another one - responsible for protecting sea routes to Europe in the Atlantic and Arctic oceans - in particular, from threats from submarines. Obviously implied Russian submarines, since the Chinese visit there extremely rarely.
“Russia is definitely not preparing for such actions, especially in the Atlantic,” notes a member of the maritime board at Russian government, ex-commander of the Northern Fleet, admiral Vyacheslav Popov. - Our defense strategy is aimed at protecting our own borders. It was during the Second World War that German submarines operated there against convoys from the United States to Europe and England. We have no such intentions for the foreseeable future."
Speaking about the Arctic Ocean, the admiral emphasized that his Arctic zone and the Northern sea route Russia will not give it up to anyone and will continue to build up its potential there.
Many military experts see the creation of a new NATO command as part of a plan to cover sea communications for the future transfer of troops and heavy weapons from the United States.
The main European military hub of the United States today remains the American airbase Ramstein in Germany. As a key logistics center, it also serves as the headquarters of the US Air Force in Europe and the command center of the joint air defense of NATO countries. The base is home to 16 squadrons of military transport aircraft of the 86th Airlift Wing and about 40 thousand personnel. Besides Ramstein, Pentagon maintains another 350 smaller bases in Europe, 40 of which it owns.
According to experts, there is now much to indicate that the United States is consistently preparing infrastructure in Eastern Europe and the Baltic countries to accommodate a group of troops of up to 150 thousand people.
Victor Goryunov, Belgorod
Lugansk locksmith
Give us Novorossiya without the Galicians! Down with Bandera's Ukraine!
Give us Novorossiya without the Galicians! Down with Bandera's Ukraine!
Give us Novorossiya without the Galicians! Down with Bandera's Ukraine!
Give us Novorossiya without the Galicians! Down with Bandera's Ukraine!
Vyacheslav
Give us Novorossiya without the Galicians! Down with Bandera's Ukraine!
crush the scum
Give us Novorossiya without the Galicians! Down with Bandera's Ukraine!
Crimean
39 Bad Guy Presidents for Ukraine
Temporary victory for Zbigniew Brzezinski
Temporary victory for Zbigniew Brzezinski
AntiBzhiz
Is Europe, having lost its mind, preparing for war with Russia?
Once again, just like more than 70 years ago, when Hitler attacked the USSR, Ukraine is chosen as the battlefield. European politicians, having perhaps lost the last remnants of sanity, headlong rushed to actively support the Ukrainian oligarchs, who are trying with all their might to “push through” the association agreement with the EU. Russia maintains Olympic calm, but no one knows how long it will demonstrate it .
My Czech colleague Vaclav Danda recently published an article in the newspaper “PROTIPROUD” under the loud title “The coup in Ukraine is preparation for a war with Russia?”. This fact suggests that despite the insanely aggressive information campaign in our media in favor of Ukraine signing an association agreement with the EU, in Europe you can still find politicians and journalists who think differently.
Warsaw should also think about this. First of all, I want to ask a simple question: is Poland ready to pay its price for such a step by Ukraine, which has no money at all? We now have more than 2 million unemployed, and the economy is experiencing, if not a crisis, then deep stagnation.
And each member country The EU will have to pay its share for the maintenance of 45 million poor Ukrainians. Supporters of Ukraine's European integration in Poland, which includes both the president and the prime minister, are trying in vain to prove that Ukraine's accession to the EU will make it possible to load the Polish economy.
This sounds simply ridiculous, since it is absolutely impossible to believe that poor Ukrainians who receive a pension of less than 80 euros and wages 200-300 euros, they specifically hid the money somewhere so that later, after signing an agreement with the EU, they could take it out and rush to the shops to buy Polish goods.
Thus, it is quite obvious that the reason for the unprecedented pressure on Ukraine from the European Union and the United States is not economics, but politics. And even somewhat so, as are the unfounded ambitions of European politicians.
Vaclav Danda rightly notes: “...President Vladimir Putin called what is now happening in Ukraine a “pogrom” and called on Ukrainians to remain calm. This, of course, is the last thing the directors of this dangerous theater needed. Their goal, on the contrary, was to cause a civil war and for the minority that lost the elections to take power. It is also necessary to provoke armed conflicts between the so-called “demonstrators” and units of the security forces. The secret services used this scenario in Syria. We see the consequences every day.”
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my Czech colleague for these truthful words:
Some may decide that Czech Eurosceptics should be for the revolutionaries and wish them luck in their attempts to bring Ukraine into the EU, since this could mean a weakening of centralized tendencies, a “dilute” of the power of Brussels and the gradual collapse of the EU. However, not everyone so simple. An attempt to include Ukraine in the EU, perhaps its division, is, first of all, a strategic blow to Russia. Russia is the “last bastion” in the battle against the strengthening power of the New World Order. Therefore, events in Ukraine must be assessed in a broader context.
What was the main reason that the well-known and experienced Soros agencies specializing in organizing coups d'etat launched “Operation Ukraine”?
President Viktor Yanukovych refused to sign an association agreement with the European Union, which would have destroyed Ukraine economically and politically. Comrades in Brussels turned white with anger. From the point of view of Barroso and his “undercover brothers”, the situation is clear: either Ukraine will be ours or it will fall; we will not allow her to maintain the current level of cooperation with Russia.
And that's the point main reason that the “civil war” operation in Ukraine is unfolding like a reality show.
We are talking - no more and no less - about the psychological and strategic preparation of EU citizens for war against Russia. At a minimum - to “cold”.
Instability on Russia's borders and the influx of armed "paramilitary" groups heading into Ukraine from across Europe serve several purposes. Including - transferring “revolutionary chaos” across borders to Russia. However, more important is the attempt to divide Ukraine and build a new “pro-European state” on the Russian borders.
On the streets of Kyiv, writes Vaclav Danda, “hired tourists” from all over Europe are also fighting, who, together with the criminal underground, form the core of the so-called “pro-European rallies.” The agency tried this kind of internationalization of demonstrations in Syria, where today foreign mercenaries are fighting, replacing the first protesters on the streets of Damascus.
It is no coincidence that all our ( Czech - approx. Author) the main Babishov-Bakalov newspapers are squealing with delight because of the “revolution in Kyiv.” Particularly noteworthy are the articles by Luboš Palata, who, just in case, to “maintain the line”, supplies two newspapers of Babisov’s pack with his articles at once - MF DNES and Lidové noviny. The innovation of the new Babishov leadership of both publications is worthy of attention. But, of course, even without Babiš, in the same spirit, in primitive live broadcasts, “Bakalovsky” Czech television and Radiožurnál “make news”.
We will see the consequences of the extremely dangerous crisis in Ukraine in the coming days. But, of course, one cannot think that professional revolutionaries from the European Union will renounce their “rights” to another colony of Brussels, and that peace will reign in Ukraine again. All this, apparently, is just an overture and a test of strength.
However, the transfer of “great chaos” closer to our borders this time should not leave us indifferent. The war is thus - for now symbolically - transferred to Europe. Troubled times await us." (End quote).
I would like to add a little to my respected colleague. I think that we Poles have a short memory. When Hitler attacked Poland on September 1, 1939, the rest of Europe, represented by England and France, betrayed us. Many European countries, such as Romania, Hungary, Croatia and others, voluntarily rushed to Russia with Hitler and participated in his atrocities there. And the Polish Army covered its banners with unfading glory, fighting against fascism. Our pilots defended the skies of England.
Poland, unlike almost all European countries, did not submit to Hitler. There were no Polish units in the SS troops, but there were Ukrainian, Croatian, Norwegian, Belgian, and French. The Poles did not disgrace themselves with such a phenomenon.
Of course, many Poles recall the Warsaw Uprising of 1861 and the earlier suppression of Polish riots by Alexander Suvorov. Russians love to talk about the expulsion of Sigismund's troops from the Kremlin in 1612 and their national hero Ivan Susanin.
But why focus your attention on these well-known facts of ancient history, when there are still many people living in Poland who remember well how the Red Army liberated us from fascism? And is it worthy for Poles to participate in anti-Russian actions like the current Ukrainian coup?
Now the manic idea of creating “Wielka Polska”, in which the territories of Ukraine act as the eastern lands, is wandering in the heads of Polish politicians. The Baltic states, also actively involved in organizing and supporting the Ukrainian coup, also hope to get their share of the pie from this process.
Against the background of all these phenomena, the Russian factor is somehow not taken into account. And Moscow’s deliberate restraint is probably due to some narrow-minded statesmen is regarded as a sign of almost weakness. But it would be a big mistake to think that this is really the case.
And there is nothing more unforgivable for a politician than his own stupidity.
The president of the Washington Center for National Interests, publisher of The National Interest magazine, Dmitry Simes, speaks very well about this.
The experience of the last 20 years shows that words of support from US and EU politicians are unlikely to translate into concrete actions - at least at the level that the Ukrainian economy would require in the absence of Russian subsidies.
Moreover, the Ukrainian opposition should listen very carefully to what exactly officials from the US and EU are saying. In the case of the United States, the message is clear: Washington is disappointed with President Viktor Yanukovych, but does not support his violent overthrow. US Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, according to media reports, expressed this idea at a meeting with opposition leaders.
Anyone who knows achievement list Ms. Nuland, who has served as US Permanent Representative to NATO, National Security Advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney, Speaker of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and, incidentally, the wife of neoconservative Robert Kagan, knows that this warning is not dictated by disadvantage sympathy for Ukrainian protesters.
American policy towards Ukraine, supported by both political parties, favors its gradual integration into the European Union and ultimately into NATO.
But the United States never intended to provide it with multibillion-dollar financial assistance, preferring instead to rely on IMF loans, which are usually issued under very strict conditions. This is an area where Washington could help organize more favorable conditions for Kyiv if it wants to move towards an agreement with the European Union. At the same time, neither the Obama administration nor the American people have any desire to enter into confrontation with Russia over Ukraine.
Today, the Obama administration is interested in cooperation with the Russian Federation on urgent international issues, such as Iran and Syria. The growing tension between the United States and Beijing also does not contribute to the desire to conflict with Moscow.
The European Union is genuinely more interested in taking Ukraine under its wing.
Some EU member countries, namely Lithuania and Poland, believe that security considerations require taking Ukraine away from Russia. Such policies are also part of a centuries-old rivalry with Russia for dominance in Eastern and Central Europe. For many others in the EU, security considerations may be less important, but encouraging Ukraine's move towards the West appears to be a symbolic manifestation of the inherent European project virtue and wisdom, at a time when Eurosceptics are gaining more and more electoral support.
If we do not take into account successful territorial expansion, the European Union has nothing special to boast about on most issues. The economic situation in the EU is very difficult, especially in the Mediterranean countries. The EU has failed to effectively deal with the problems of mass migration and has not found a way to absorb large flows of new arrivals. In addition, European interventions during the Arab Spring can hardly be called a success.
The enthusiasm of London and Paris for an invasion of Syria was beset by the turn of first the British Parliament, and then the Obama administration, to agree with Russia, which convinced it to move to the destruction of the Syrian arsenal of chemical weapons.
In such a situation, the entry of post-Soviet countries and, above all, Ukraine into the orbit of the European Union could give European politicians the right to claim that they are still “on the right side of history.”
Despite this, both the European Union and Mr. Yanukovych realized from their own difficult experience that the EU is not ready to support its rhetoric with money. In the absence of strong support from the United States, the European Union, with its weak military resources, is not ready to take responsibility for ensuring stability in Ukraine, especially in the event of a new “Orange Revolution.”
Given that it may be easier to remove a flagging Ukrainian president from office than to replace him with an effective and legitimate successor, Ukrainian opposition leaders should think twice before seeking to overthrow the results of a free and fair election or further destabilize a country they It has proven difficult to manage even under the best of circumstances.
Do not be deceived, there are no daring visionaries like Churchill or De Gaulle among European leaders today. There are not even politicians of the level of Thatcher or Kohl among them.
The current European presidents and prime ministers are, at best, pragmatic, down-to-earth politicians who go with the flow. It is absolutely natural for them to demand from Russia non-interference in Ukrainian affairs and at the same time, with all their might, push Ukraine to sign an agreement with the European Union. Who will pay for Ukraine’s approach to Europe and especially who will ensure the country’s security are completely different questions.
Experience shows that the smiles of the leaders of Poland and Lithuania during official photo sessions with Saakashvili in August 2008 mean little, and symbolic hugs are not real support. The leaders of the Ukrainian opposition should think about this. (End quote).
Poland has already made a big mistake by agreeing to the deployment of American interceptor missiles on its territory. In response, we received Russian Iskander complexes in Kaliningrad, which made the people of Poland even more hostage to decisions made not in Warsaw, but in Washington and Moscow.
Further escalation of the Ukrainian conflict threatens to turn the entire Eastern Europe into the kingdom of chaos and fear, when tens of millions of Ukrainians will pour there in search of a better fate.
It is quite obvious that it is not the goal of the European Union to ensure their decent existence in conditions when in the EU countries themselves from 25 to 40 percent of the population live below the poverty line, and the unemployment rate has reached a critical level.
At the same time, huge financial resources of the European Union are spent on inciting the Ukrainian conflict, fooling and fooling Ukrainian society. And none of the politicians answers the question: wouldn’t it be better to spend this money on solving our countries’ own economic problems? And why should Europeans pay for the fantasies of their officials and the ambitions of Ukrainian oligarchs?
By the way, when I was recently in Kyiv, I heard the following joke:
A Western journalist asks a lousy, filthy and dirty “Maidanovite” who is eating a huge piece of bread with sausage with visible pleasure:
Are you for association with the EU?
Are you against Yanukovych?
Are you for Ukraine's entry into the Customs Union?
Why are you standing here then?
And where can I find such a paradise, every day? - comes the answer, which is quite logical for this type of Ukrainian.
It is high time for our politicians dealing with Ukraine to understand that every day of Euromaidan with European money bleeds our economy. And the Ukrainian crisis is quite capable of spreading beyond the borders of Ukraine itself.
They shouldn’t think that Russia will just give Ukraine into its sphere of influence. European Union. This is the height of either naivety or stupidity.
European politicians do not even allow the thought that Russia could take any action within the bounds of the possible to keep Ukraine.
It seems that the EU and the USA have forgotten the old truth from Otto von Bismarck - “politics is the art of the possible.” However, the “Iron Chancellor” in relation to Russia seemed to be warning his future followers from the EU of the USA with his less famous quote: “Even the most favorable outcome of the war will never lead to the disintegration of the main strength of Russia, which is based on millions of Russians themselves... These latter, even if they are dismembered by international treatises, are just as quickly reconnected with each other, like particles of a cut piece of mercury. ."
In a war of nerves on the verge of a foul, Putin has an advantage. His actions and statements by Russian diplomats do not have such a clearly expressed hysterical naive-infantile shade, which EU and US representatives persistently demonstrate at the highest level.
And it is absolutely impossible to imagine such a stupid situation when one of Russian politicians will come to Ukraine to distribute cookies at Antimaidan. It seems that Russia has some kind of trump card that it is not yet ready to put on the table.