The recent meeting of the renowned Bilderberg Club created quite a stir among the global community and, of course, within our society.
One gets the impression from the news reports and coverage that at issue is no less than a meeting by the world’s government at which two important matters were discussed: What should be done with Russia? Should it be completely destroyed or spared? And second, who will become the next U.S. president, the world’s formal ruler?
It’s a false impression.
All the discourse to the effect that someone can control the political class, that someone is “behind” the political leaders, that there’s some kind of global cabal is the discussion of people who haven’t the vaguest understanding of the real mechanisms of political power.
The political class always strives to make decisions by itself. If it doesn’t do so, it loses power. As a rule, not a single person who holds power wants to lose it.
When I worked in the president’s administration, many times I myself observed Russian oligarchs in Forbes’ top 10 sitting in the waiting room of the the president’s head of administration and waiting their turn. More often than not, they have to wait six months to a year for meetings with the head of state himself. Some of them haven’t met with him for several years.
Anyone familiar with the situation knows that it’s hard to exert influence on our president.
The situation is the same in America or in Europe: The political class retains extremely strict control over its sphere of influence. A prominent businessman can try to influence policy, but he can’t be in charge of policy. The politicians themselves are in charge and believe they’re up to the task without puppeteers.
But who really rules the world?
Here, unfortunately, one may observe that the world is in a state of uncontrolled chaos. Serious, crucial negotiations aren’t being held and strategic decisions aren’t being made.
Everyone is waiting with bated breath for what will happen in America in the fall.
Indeed, this is a very important moment for both Russia and Europe, which have been subjected to the strongest of pressure by the U.S. Forcing the EU to adopt anti-Russian sanctions, Washington tried to use the Old World as a weapon against Russia, but, as often happens with Washington, it went too far.
Six months ago, about 30 to 40 percent of Europeans came out in support of Putin and lifting the sanctions. Today it was reported that it’s already on the order of 50 percent.
Fifty percent of Europeans are for friendship with Russia; fifty percent of Europeans are for lifting the sanctions and sympathize with Putin. It’s quite likely that in six months this figure will grow to 60 percent. Public opinion will develop in our favor.
This moment will be the end of U.S. hegemony over Europe. And then it won’t be important anymore who the American president will be, whether it’s Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. If Trump gets in, in keeping with his doctrine he’ll leave Europe alone, giving her up to the mercy of Russia.
Hillary Clinton thinks that America should continue its globalist policy and be in charge over everyone. But in that case, the question remains as to just how capable it is of doing so.
The Americans couldn’t bring Europe to heel, despite the unprecedented pressure. The imposition of sanctions was wholly and completely the Americans’ initiative.
The trade turnover between Russia and the EU reached $500 billion — more than that between China and the U.S. The infliction of mutual damage in the form of sanctions has practically led to a twofold reduction of trade.
France, Hungary, Slovakia and Finland have suffered most of all. England, which comes out more actively than others in favor of maintaining the sanctions, has suffered least of all. America, with whom Russia has minimal trade, hasn’t suffered at all.
Thus, it is the U.S. that bears the responsibility for the further destruction of the European economy, which was already in deep crisis.
The moment of truth was the news about the negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. High-profile European politicians stated that they’re not ready to sign the agreement in the form in which it’s being proposed by the Americans, since it portends Europe’s complete enslavement to multinational corporations, giving them a broad range of privileges over European governments. Thus, the Obama administration has failed to sign an agreement. It’s a great failure of American policy in the Old World.
Is there an opportunity for America to sign an agreement under a new president? I think not. The U.S. used practically its entire arsenal: It carried out a number of provocations and demonized Putin and Russia. But it isn’t helping anymore. It’s very hard to force the European political class to act against its own economic interests. The truth about what’s happening is now beginning to reach the Europeans, and public opinion is gradually developing in our favor.
European leaders have detected this signal. Hollande tries not to speak out on foreign policy issues because every statement he makes against Putin and Russia is turned against him. Merkel has said she’s ready for serious cooperation with Russia. And she even repeated de Gaulle’s famous phrase that Europe should stretch from Lisbon to Vladivostok.
De Gaulle was always a supporter of an independent Europe.
In this regard, many European intellectuals point out the similarity of De Gaulle’s ideas and worldview with Putin’s worldview.
Putin is a classic conservative who stands for peace on the continent and for cooperation between the continental powers. We have far more self-interest and it’s far more beneficial for us to cooperate and not play against each other, something that pleases our “partners” across the ocean, says Vladimir Vladimirovich [Putin].
Thus, whatever the case, the situation is developing in Russia’s favor. Time is on our side. There’s also no point in worrying about what the Bilderberg Club has decided with regard to Russia and Clinton or Trump. The processes of Europe’s exit from under U.S. control have already started and are irreversible. The only question is whether it will happen relatively painlessly or through a breakup of the European national consciousness, and through fires in Europe and throughout the world. In any case, for Russia the future appears auspicious.
About this publication