Translated by Ollie Richardson & Angelina Siard
Ukraine did a lot so that Europe understood and accepted the need to reconcile with Russia, to forget about sanctions and to start replanning its destiny: to start a transition from the Euroatlantic to the Eurasian choice. Taking into account the last benefit of Babchenko – with the participation of Poroshenko, Gritsak, and Lutsenko, and also involving European politicians and media as movie extras, Ukraine did even more for this transition than it actually depended on it.
But there is a problem – absolutely nothing depended on Ukraine. That’s why the efforts made by Kiev yielded zero results. After all, what ever you multiply zero by, the sum will be zero all the same.
That’s why despite the fact that many colleagues, being under the impression of the total, improbable in its impassability, stupidity shown by the Kiev regime, extol the role of the Ukrainian politicians and Petro Poroshenko personally in the observed turn towards Russian-European accord (and most likely even in this regard) I consider it to be my duty to restore the trampled justice and to point to the true peacekeeper, the true screenwriter and the director of the Russian-European cordial accord that is inevitably coming. This uncommon personality underestimated by contemporaries is the US President Donald Trump well known to all of you.
Yes. It is precisely he who we have to be grateful to for the enlightenment of Europe. And it’s not about the US’ small failures in the Korean and Syrian directions. The presidents before him also suffered defeats in such affairs. Especially as Assad and the third Kim appeared to be tough nuts, stubborn in their defense, dexterous in diplomacy, and, in addition, ready to go all the way. And it’s not about Trump not having much luck with Ukrainian partners. After all, it’s not he who brought them to power; it’s not he who selected and raised them. The incubator of imbeciles was opened by Americans in Ukraine not only before Obama, but even before Bush Jr. The main events happened during Clinton’s era (Bill). Europeans had a hand in the organisation of the negative selection of the Ukrainian elite.
The US endured similar and even much more serious problems (the Caribbean Crisis, the Arab oil embargo, defeat in the Vietnamese war, the failure of the operation to liberate the American Embassy in Tehran, the mass death of marines in Lebanon and special troops in Somalia, etc.) earlier without special problems, and Europe never showed a willingness to find an alternative to a union with Washington.
But then suddenly there is the St. Petersburg economic forum. The massive amount of contracts with European firms worth billions, including those that were concluded by circumventing sanctions, means nothing. The American companies signed just as many similar contracts and also for billions. This is pleasant, this testifies to the failure of the sanctions strategy of the West, but it doesn’t influence the relationship between the Europe and the US in any way. Even the huge number of participants of the forum is only proof of the failure of the policy of internationally isolating Russia. Well, the US also wasn’t able to isolate the USSR, but they managed to destroy it very well. By the way – with Europe’s full support.
Everything that happened in St. Petersburg in 2018 happened both one year and two years ago. Except one thing. Until now there was no such thing as the president of France Emmanuel Macron (symbolising the EU), the Prime Minister of Japan Shinzo Abe (personifying the eastern allies of the US), and the managing director of the IMF Christine Lagarde (representing international financial organisations) acting in a role that was no bigger than the suite of the president of Russia, without trying to hide their secondariness in relation to Vladimir Putin.
Until now, for each of them there was only one politician in the world that they agreed to fade into the background for – the US President. With the others they were ready to teach and raise them, even if they came to their place as guests. Their demonstrative self-abasement in St. Petersburg means only one thing – in the world there is a new leader and they recognise it, doing the corresponding ritual dance around him.
But this is not all. Literally on the eve of the St. Petersburg economic forum in Sochi, there was a mass pilgrimage of those leaders of the EU who couldn’t come to St. Petersburg or whose problems couldn’t be postponed. A considerable part of the leaders of the West visited the reception hall of the president of Russia (some in Sochi, some in St. Petersburg), expressing their readiness to switch to a new camp, probing the terrain concerning the opportunities to obtain for themselves exclusive conditions of cooperation. Merkel, Macron, Abe, and Lagarde are the creme de la creme of the globalist establishment; they are the people who cemented the foundation of the US’ power over the collective West suddenly were not simply movie extras at Putin’s event, but also actively and sincerely criticised the US. Although they still left for themselves a path for retreat.
They haven’t yet left Washington’s side, but are already looking for a path and fixedly study the alternative leader.
So what happened and what is Trump’s place here?
As we remember, the fight during the 2016 US elections happened not simply between the candidate of the Republicans and the candidate of the Democrats, but between the globalist’s Clinton and Trump, who not quite deservedly, but technically correctly was called an American nationalist.
Everything was clear with Clinton’s policy. She suggested to further increase the West’s pressure on opponents (Russia, China, their allies), hoping that the joint resource superiority of the West will allow it to win the race for the leadership; that the irreversible consequences of the economic war will break Russia and China earlier than the West will feel their influence. War expenses (economic or hybrid) were supposed to be covered by the trophies after the victory.
Trump criticised this strategy, insisting that its implementation has been going on not for the first decade, and a result for Washington is now further away than it was ten years ago, bearing in mind that 10 years ago it was further than 20 years ago. Trump recognised that America is losing its resources much quicker than its opponents lose theirs; that crisis shakes it permanently, while Russia endures a strip of global crisis rather quietly. That’s why he suggested to replace the strategy in order to concentrate, first of all, on the internal problems of the US, and only in the process of their resolution to return to a policy of confronting the Russian Federation. In order to “make America again great”, Trump had to reduce foreign policy activity and move on to a policy of full or partial isolationism – by redirecting means earlier spent on an aggressive foreign policy to solving internal problems.
Trump safely came to power. And it is here that it became clear that with all the accuracy of the diagnosis made by him and the basic fidelity of the scheme of treatment, he can’t realise his program bundle. It’s not a coincidence that the fight against Trump’s course, which even threatened him for a long time with impeachment, was conducted exactly until he agreed to leave foreign policy for the hawks to sort out, having concentrated on the solution of economic problems.
As a result, he once again won against his opponents and not only remained in power, but also created a quite good reserve for re-election for a second term. Nowadays Trump’s popularity in the US shows record-breaking high levels. But his popularity among Europeans suffers.
The fact is that having placed foreign policy in the hands of hawks, Trump took a compelled step, and it’s not the resistance of globalists, but objective reality that forced him to do it. The US couldn’t pass to a policy of isolationism for the sake of the economy because the most part of internal consumption was covered by a product received within the framework of a nonequivalent exchange, and it was possible to provide this exchange only having kept military-political hegemony.
At the same time Trump didn’t refuse to implement a protectionist policy, trying to at least reduce the negative balance in foreign trade. Here he automatically stepped on the interests not only of China, but also the EU and Japan. Moreover, due to his aspiration to reduce the budget deficit of the US he started insisting on a sharp increase in the contributions of allies for the maintenance of NATO. In essence, Trump simultaneously entered into a fierce economic competition with the EU and demanded from it to increase the current military expenses.
If earlier the partnership with the US gave Europe the opportunity to practically not spent money on security and to receive quite good dividends, receiving in addition a share from looting the rest of the world, then now it turned out that for the sake of its rescue, the US – which lost the possibility to plunder the rest of the world – decided to start looting Europe.
The EU decided to defend itself. But for this purpose there is a need for systems of security and economic development that give an alternative to the American ones. And only Russia can provide them.
And this is how Trump, driven by the desire to restore the industrial power and financial stability of the US, in collision with reality was obliged to take steps that could’ve brought him success if Europe didn’t begin to flail and agreed to sacrifice itself for American ambitions.
But the EU started fighting, other allies also remembered about “eternal interests” and the US found itself in a situation where isolation, should allies indeed switch to Russia’s side, threatens Washington itself. Thanks to Trump and his good intentions.
Copyright © 2022. All Rights Reserved.