No, no one with a heart and mind can be happy about the looming decline of the US’s European allies. The problems that will be associated with this decline will far dwarf the previous problems of the states concerned and will also not be a constructive contribution to international understanding and world peace. And as a fellow human being and as a citizen of these states, one must be very concerned about what will happen socially, economically and politically to the people living in this part of Europe.
Yes, it need not have come to this. Many experts have been pointing out for years that those responsible for the policies of the European states have not done their homework. Now the radical confrontation course against Russia has been added to this. Common sense alone tells us that this is a dead end. Peace and security without and against Russia will not prevail in Europe. It is not only a propaganda formula that is secretly known to be untrue, but it is developing into a kind of political neurosis: no longer looking at one’s own mistakes and failures, but blaming one man for everything – Russian President Vladimir Putin.
And if there is talk of one’s own “mistakes,” then only with the formula that fits the anti-Russian propaganda: We were wrong about Russia and should have recognised “the true character” of Russian policy much earlier and focused on even more confrontation and hostility. A formula that is currently very common, especially among Germany’s politicians.
G7 and NATO:
Russia should be the enemy number 1
Now, however, “corrections” are being made. The G7 summit in Elmau and the NATO summit in Madrid have shown this. It is not even worth going into all the details. The core of the decisions is: Russia is enemy number 1, we are massively rearming, Sweden and Finland (which have not been neutral for a long time) will now officially become NATO members. Russia is to be confronted with even more potential force than it already has. Look here, you Russians: Now there is more instead of less NATO at your border! That’s what you get (but actually we had planned it that way before).
However, the NATO states have also realised that the vast majority of the world’s states do not support this anti-Russian course. Already the SPD chairman Lars Klingbeil had complained in his speech of 21 June 2022 (cf. Current Concerns No. 14 of 28 June 2022) that Russia had “cultivated relations with emerging states for years and thus tied them to itself.” Thus, “alternatives to the Western development model have grown.” And further: “For many years, Russia and China have also courted democratic states such as South Africa, India or Brazil, giving them a voice at the international level, for example through the BRICS initiative. They have seen [get this!] the interests of these countries and treated their governments with respect. That has built trust. We are currently seeing the effects of this when many countries are rejecting our path of sanctions against Russia. The votes in the United Nations General Assembly show that half of the world’s population [it’s more than half!] is not behind our policy. That has to give us pause for thought.”
One consequence of this kind of “thinking” was that leading political representatives from Argentina, India, Indonesia, Senegal and South Africa were invited to Elmau for a special meeting. They were cajoled and hoped to draw them to the side of the NATO war against Russia.
Neocolonial demands are rejected
But this did not succeed. This becomes impressively clear in an interview that the South African Foreign Minister Naledi Pandor gave to ZDF on June 27 (see page 1)1. One notices that the main motive here is not any kind of dependence on Russia, but a dignified and realistic self-confidence – in the knowledge of centuries of colonial and neo-colonial policies of precisely those powers that are now once again demanding allegiance.
And if one reads the final declaration of 23 June of the BRICS summit in Beijing2, strikingly you find no enemy image there either. Yes, the chapter on “Securing Peace and Security” calls in detail for cooperation in the fight against international terrorism, but there is no enemy image of the USA, NATO or the EU to be found. Instead, the BRICS states (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) commit themselves to “respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states,” emphasise their commitment “to the peaceful resolution of differences and disputes between states through dialogue and negotiation” and “support all efforts leading to the peaceful resolution of crises”.
Matters that should actually be
self-evident for all states of the world
On Ukraine, they formulate only a few sentences: “We support talks between Russia and Ukraine. We have also discussed our concerns over the humanitarian situation in and around Ukraine and expressed our support to efforts of the UN Secretary-General, UN Agencies and ICRC to provide humanitarian assistance in accordance with the basic principles of humanity, neutrality and impartiality established in UN General Assembly resolution 46/182.”
In other points of the chapter on “Securing Peace and Security,” the final declaration addresses the situation in Afghanistan, Iran, the Middle East and Africa, always emphasising the idea of peaceful conflict resolution as well as the sovereignty of the states concerned, and finally calling for decisive steps in disarmament and arms control, especially with regard to weapons of mass destruction.
The first pages of the final declaration begin with a commitment to mutual respect and understanding, equality, solidarity, openness, inclusiveness and the principle of consensus. The BRICS countries want to strengthen and deepen their cooperation and create more opportunities for people-to-people relations across countries. They are committed to multilateralism and the central role of the United Nations, but also call for urgent reforms of the UN organisation, especially the Security Council. They pay tribute to various UN agencies such as the WTO and WHO, but also to the G20. One should read the final declaration in its entirety to see that nothing revolutionary or special is being called for here, but rather things that should actually be self-evident for all states of the world. The only difference is that they are no longer so today.
In the past weeks since 24 February and the reactions of NATO and its allies, Russia’s political leadership has repeatedly stated that NATO has raised a new Iron Curtain right through the middle of Europe and that Russia must and will therefore orient itself differently: towards Eurasia. What else is the country supposed to do?
But this cannot and must not be the “end of history”. Europe would be well advised not to continue to participate in the division of the world. The price for this would be very, very high – and this division of the world is also not a natural political law. On the contrary, common sense also speaks against it. But at the moment, hoping for the political leaders in the European NATO states and those responsible in the allied states is probably futile. All the more important are the voices and the commitment of the citizens.•
In spite of the current warmongering propaganda, simplification and distortion of the real causes of conflict in Ukraine, it is quite clear that EU has no alternative to Russia being the most important neighbour and partner in maintaining European stability, development and common prosperity.
How long time has to pass by before EU gets leaders capable of recognising this fact?
Žiivadin Jovanović, President of the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals
ts. Recently, Heritage Action, a conservative grassroots organisation with two million grassactivists, released a statement from Executive Director Jessica Anderson ahead of the U.S. House of Representatives’ vote on a $40 billion Ukraine aid package.
“This proposed Ukraine aid package takes money away from the priorities of the American people and recklessly sends our taxpayer dollars to a foreign nation without any accountability. America is struggling with record-setting inflation, debt, a porous border, crime and energy depletion yet progressives in Washington are prioritizing a $40 billion aid package to Ukraine – more than the entire annual budget of the U.S. Department of Justice.
The American people are counting on their elected representatives to seriously consider the size, scope and funding accounts of this package rather than blindly supporting it with less than six hours of scrutiny. […] The Biden administration’s efforts to send additional resources to the Ukraine border also comes at a time when the administration and Democrats in Congress refused to send even a fraction of that amount to solve the serious problems along the U.S. southern border. The legislation also comes amid record-setting inflation, with March’s inflation rate coming in at over 8%.” •
ds. As the war in Ukraine continues and claims more and more victims, the question arises as to who actually benefits from this war:
Just to recall: the goal of American foreign policy for more than 100 years has been to prevent an economic and political convergence between Russia and Western Europe; the US has achieved this goal.
A new Iron Curtain now separates the West from the East again.
The EU, under pressure from the US, has cut its economic ties with Russia and given in to American demands for rearmament. NATO’s “rapid reaction force” is to be increased from currently 40,000 to 300,000 soldiers and heavy weapons are to be moved mainly to the Baltic States and Poland. In NATO’s new strategic concept, Russia is no longer treated as a “strategic partner” but as an enemy.
Does anyone really believe that this serves peace?•
If you want to prevent the setting of cookies (for example, Google Analytics), you can set this up by using this browser add-on.