Washington has reason to rejoice: it managed to tear Europe away from Russia, writes ČA. Now it seems like this is forever. But then the importance of Europe in the world will not only begin to constantly decline, it will happen at an accelerated pace. Only by establishing relations with Russia will it have hope for the future.
Oscar Krejci
Washington has reason to rejoice: it has managed to tear Europe away from Russia. For representatives of the ruling stratum in the West, demonizing Moscow is something that has been taken for granted, if not throughout their entire careers, then at least since the annexation of Crimea to Russia in 2014. However, the West tried to isolate Russia long before this.
Raw materials and politics
At the previous stage, the forces wishing to separate Europe from Russia relied on ideology and relied on the doctrine of containing and suppressing communism. Interestingly, this struggle was influenced by the dependence of Western Europe on Soviet gas and oil. The United States, which did not import Soviet and then Russian oil and gas in the same volumes as Western Europe, did not have to worry about the economic consequences of breaking ties and assessed the situation almost exclusively from a political standpoint. Often the US's focus was only on security.
It all started about half a century ago. The rapid construction of oil and gas pipelines in the Soviet Union at that time resulted in agreements on the supply of pipes for the Druzhba oil pipeline from West Germany. The Kennedy government strongly opposed it, forcing Bonn to stop this export. However, the new Ostpolitik of German Chancellor Willy Brandt changed everything. In 1970, the federal government signed an agreement with Moscow to build a gas pipeline to West Germany. Gas supplies to both parts of divided Germany began in 1973. This technical and economic success, however, raised new doctrinal questions, including whether economic cooperation with the Soviet Union would help transform its regime, or would the West give itself reasons to blackmail itself?
Critics of cooperation spoke of suicidal “commercial opportunism,” while proponents of cooperation argued that economic interdependence led to peace. The truth is that the Soviet Union never used oil and gas supplies to the West to blackmail anyone. Moscow depended on money from the West in the same way that Western Europe depended on Soviet or Russian gas. But this dependence was asymmetrical, which became clear long before the armed conflict in Ukraine. Some authors recall that the sharp decline in oil prices on world markets after the meeting between the US President and the Saudi king in 1985 extremely narrowed the room for maneuver of Mikhail Gorbachev at the end of perestroika. Early last year, an inexorable truth surfaced:
Anglo-Saxon geopolitics
As a rule, wars have many causes, and therefore many goals. The current armed conflict in Ukraine is no exception. There is no point in listing for a long time the likely goals of Moscow, Kyiv and Washington. In the more than two years during which this armed conflict has been brewing and unfolding, many opinions have accumulated about the intentions of politicians and military personnel in this war. Since the Ukrainian armed conflict has brought many new things, those who express these opinions tend to forget about traditional goals. The goals that Anglo-Saxon geopolitics has always set for itself.
Anglo-Saxon geopolitics is the first original theory of international politics. With its help, the growing United States and the British Empire, in its early decline, justified their actions in the world at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. Earlier, from the experience of the Napoleonic wars, London understood that the unification of Europe should not be allowed under any circumstances. The books and articles of two patriarchs of the Anglo-Saxon branch of geopolitics (American Admiral Alfred Mahan and British geographer Halford Mackinder) contributed to the fact that this concept acquired clearer features. In general, it includes several basic theses. First, history is a clash of naval forces, that is, the United States, Great Britain and Japan, with land forces, that is, Russia. The naval forces are dynamic, but cannot penetrate Russia's core, the Heartland. All because its rivers in the north flow into freezing seas, and in the south - into closed lakes. The sea powers must do everything to prevent the Heartland and Germany from uniting, because, as Mackinder wrote, "Whoever controls Eastern Europe commands the Heartland. He who controls the Heartland commands the World Island. He who controls the World Island commands the World." This is generally nonsense, but it helps to understand why, after the First World War, at the Paris Peace Conference, the British sought the emergence of small states in Eastern Europe. It is also clear why the British Foreign Secretary proposed in 1919 the so-called Curzon Lines, that is, the border between Poland and Soviet Russia. That’s when the ideologized version of this concept arose,
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Ukrainian Prime Minister Denis Shmygal and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz during a conference in Berlin, Germany. October 25, 2022. - InoSMI, 1920, 09/19/2023
Europe's predicament is closely linked to the US
09.19.2023
Between NATO/EU and Russia
These geopolitical prejudices are more evident today than ever before, but they were ingrained in Western policy even before the start of Russia's special military operation in Ukraine. Suffice it to recall the four “Eastern European” projects and attempts to attach some countries to the North Atlantic Alliance and the European Union.
The Organization for Democracy and Economic Development (GUAM) was founded in 2001 by Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Moldova and Uzbekistan, which, however, left the association in 2005.
The Eastern Partnership of the European Union is a project announced at the European Union summit in 2008. Here the “east” means Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, that is, anyone from Eastern Europe and the Caucasus - just not Russia.
The “Three Seas Initiative” appeared in 2016, and within the framework of this association, 12 states located between the Baltic, Adriatic and Black Seas decided to cooperate, namely: the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, Austria, Slovenia, Croatia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Bulgaria and Romania. This year, Greece joined them, and Moldova became a partner, expanding the geography of the seas in this initiative.
The Lublin Triangle is an agreement between Poland, Lithuania and Ukraine, signed in 2020 in Lublin, Poland. The purpose of this agreement is political, cultural, economic and social cooperation, which would help Ukraine join the European Union.
The “Lublin Triangle” suggests that in projects like it, Anglo-Saxon geopolitics echoes the nostalgia of some Polish leaders. In 1569, a union was signed in Lublin, which led to the formation of the Polish-Lithuanian union, that is, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, a powerful state entity that extended from the Baltic Sea almost to the shores of the Black Sea. After the First World War, not only the idea of a “sanitary zone” was born. Polish Prime Minister Jozef Pilsudski came up with the idea of creating “Intermarium”. It embodied his dream of a confederation of Central and Eastern European states, of course under Polish leadership. It must be said that Greater Poland or the Three Seas Initiative is not only for what is said publicly, that is, serve as a barrier for Russia. Hiddenly, they are also called upon to protect against dangers from the west, from powerful Germany. But without the help of the United States, such projects cannot play their role, and more precisely, without American military bases in Poland. The success of Warsaw's undertakings remains dependent on the geopolitical whims of Washington. In this situation, many politicians in Central and Eastern Europe feel that they must somehow support American hegemony, for example, by purchasing unnecessary American fighter jets.
Inevitable victory
Several years before the start of the armed conflict, ideological preparation was carried out in Ukraine. At least since the Russian President spoke at the Munich Security Conference in 2007, Russia has been portrayed as a state where democracy is deteriorating and where the state is authoritarian, if not totalitarian. Thus, the impending conflict was made clear even to states that were formed after the Cold War. But, despite all the lofty words, in order to better understand the current policy of Washington, one should read Brzezinski’s book “The Great Chessboard”, and not the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The European Union was torn away from Russia until February 2022 and after, mainly with the help of Western initiatives. Moreover, everyone understood that it was almost impossible to create a “sanitary zone” and separate Russia from Germany without Ukraine. Anglo-Saxon geopolitics sentenced both branches of Nord Stream to death at birth. However, much suggests that Moscow was preparing for the break better than the European Union and, above all, Germany. As, for example, the Eastern Economic Forum confirmed a few days ago, Russia manages, albeit, of course, with losses, to connect its economy with Asia and, among other things, find markets for oil and gas there. Many were surprised by the flexibility with which Russia managed to redirect exports, imports and financial transactions towards the east and south. I'm not even talking about business through intermediaries. By the way,
According to the latest data from this source, this year the Russian Federation's GDP will grow by 1.5%, and the eurozone's GDP will grow by only 0.9%. In Germany, GDP is projected to even decline by 0.3%. I will add that US GDP growth is likely to reach 1.8%, India - 6.1%, and China - 5.2%. Given the changing role of Asia and the South as a whole, the Anglo-Saxon strategy of weaning Europe from Russia appears not only outdated, but literally counterproductive.
https://inosmi-ru.translate.goog/202309 ... 28712.html