What Did They Fight For?

European politicians are gradually coming to realize a sad truth: having quarreled with Russia, they have been used and thrown over. This realization has led to weariness with a prolonged anti-Russian policy. America’s structure of subjugation has begun to falter. Spending time with European politicians only strengthens this impression.

The current problems in Russia-NATO relations stem from the fact that the West takes the situation with Crimea and the Donbass as its starting point, while Russia counts the time from the coup in Kiev that brought Petro Poroshenko, Arseniy Yatsenyuk and Alexander Turchynov – militant Russophobic politicians – to power.

As a result, Russian and Western politicians simply don’t hear one another, and global misunderstanding arises. This is then taken advantage of by those who stand to benefit from a conflict within Europe leading to a gradual militarization and inevitable submission to the U.S.

At the same time, there is suspicion that the authority received by Petro Poroshenko because of the coup in Ukraine was at the very least illegitimate for a long time. Nevertheless, our “Western partners” assured Russia the entire time that the presidential and parliamentary elections for the Verkhovna Rada* were legal and democratic. But if everything was so legal and legitimate, then why did the powers that be in that same Verkhovna Rada need to declare the authority of the previous Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych expired a year after the election?

As a result, all decisions made up to that point could automatically be ruled illegal, including the so-called anti-terrorist operation declared by the regime. That means that U.S. and European representatives supported an illegal government, a government which also declared a universal privatization, prepping the country’s economy for the IMF. This meant selling off strategic assets to essential people more cheaply.

It’s already well-known that only British and American companies are consulting on the privatization process. That means that the “tastiest” assets will make their way into the hands of certain investors. That’s by no means a coincidence.

It’s possible that the strange behavior of the French and German leaders, who have been on America’s and Britain’s leash for the entirety of the sanctions, was linked to hopes of sharing in the future divvying up of Ukrainian goods. Now it appears these hopes won’t come true.

So it turns out that European politicians were first coerced into violating international norms (Yanukovych was elected, his legitimacy was recognized by Western countries, and then they simply toppled him), tempted by future preferential treatment in the apportionment of the leftovers of the Ukrainian economy, and now they’ve been thrown over.

It’s not for nothing that the (for now, at least) president of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker is heading to an international economic forum in St. Petersburg, despite the sanctions and hints from his American and British colleagues. Hints are one thing, but those in the pro-sanction camp are getting riled up for a real scandal in connection with this visit. However, Juncker has a reputation as an iconoclast. He’s patted his colleagues on the cheek and kicked them in the teeth.

Nevertheless, despite the growing talk in Italy, Austria, France and even Germany of loosening or even canceling the anti-Russian sanctions, most likely they will grow even harsher. Washington will insist on it, as it is looking to ratchet up conflict between Russia and NATO.

Most of all this means preparation for a summit in Warsaw this June. It appears that every necessary announcement about Russia’s “aggression” and its “unreasonable ambitions” of greatness will take place there. Apparently, this is essential, as we recently heard, in order to “underline European unity in the face of the threat from Russia” and allow America’s European partners to affirm their sacred oaths.

Russia’s resistance to attempts to discredit her on the international stage will also become more comprehensive. All this will end in the same old way. When any country wants to control everyone and everything, in the end it can’t even control itself. That’s what happened to France in the 19th century and Germany in the 20th.

We can see that the system of submission to the U.S. that it has so intensely cultivated within the G7 framework is already faltering.

Recently, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe met with President Putin. Judging by observers’ reactions, it turned out to be constructive for both sides. Of course, the rendezvous took place over U.S. grumbling.

True, confidantes claimed that that’s how the game goes. Washington wasn’t against the meeting on principle, but wanted it to take place after the G7 session in Japan – allegedly so that its wishes could be carried to the wayward Russian leadership. However, experts know well enough that America was entirely against any face-to-face meeting between Abe and Putin.

We must honestly recognize that any peaceful treaty between Japan and Russia by 2018, which Japan insisted upon, is unlikely. Still, the creation of an informal but effective rapport between Putin and Shinzo Abe is entirely possible. Furthermore, the most effective extent of this cooperation might be achieved after Abe steps down as prime minister, as strange as that might sound. That is the convention of Japanese politics, and Western politics in general. Former prime ministers happily join the service of their recent opponents.

Taking all these nuances into account, the U.S. Congress passing the “Global Magnitsky Act” can be seen as a threatening gesture lurking beneath talks on cooperation and the renewal of the Russia-NATO council on foreign affairs. The act gives Washington the opportunity to impose sanctions on any foreign government for so-called violations of the human rights of their own citizens.

Critics of the Russian authorities are already salivating in anticipation of the “extended sanctions banquet.” However, this is less to do with Russia and much more to do with her obstinate “partners.”

*Editor’s note: The unicameral parliament of Ukraine.