Article

‘European army’

Written by The Frontier Post

Elena Karaeva

Josep Borrell, High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security (and at the same time – Deputy President of the European Commission), in addition to heading European diplomacy, is also a blogger.
He writes a little. The other day on the official portal of the European Commission was published a post by the blogger Borrell under the heading “How can we tame the power politics of the East?” The East means Russia, which the author of the publication intends to “tame”.
Josep Borrell changed his diplomat’s suit to that of a circus trainer, simultaneously changing the tone of the conversation and the vocabulary of the discussion. Judge for yourself: “We see how Russia’s policy is being pursued today with the help of hybrid actions combining threat and blackmail, and in the face of what is happening we must be firm and united in our actions and decisions.”
Thus, a united Europe does not designate Russia as a rival and not as a rival: the EU calls Russia an enemy. Because only the one whom you consider to be the enemy can threaten – with the opponent you conduct a conversation in a different tone.
Borrell, in a publication containing many more interesting passages, mentions the Charter of Paris, and in an extremely positive tone: in his opinion, it was then that the contours of the “current system of European security” took shape. In fact, Josep Borrell likes the Paris Charter for another reason: this document officially recorded the end of the Cold War.
And unofficially, the winners were named (this is the collective West, the NATO countries and the EU) and the loser was designated, it was the Soviet Union. The next stage, since the collapse of the USSR has ceased to be a matter of geopolitics, but has become a matter of political technology, is the signing of agreements in Maastricht.
It was there that the first contours of how to begin to deprive Russia, as it is customary to say everything in the same geopolitics, of “zones of influence” were outlined. The first under the knife, in the literal sense of the word, was sent to Yugoslavia. Tens of thousands of victims, a sea of ??blood, tremendous suffering, violation of all norms of international law, but when such goals are at stake, who reckons with the means?
Almost in parallel and in the same, in general, ways, they destroyed the USSR (the Russians, although they became a divided nation, found the strength to meet this catastrophe with dignity, with a straight back and with the appropriate elegance, taking on all the obligations of a huge country). The republics have gone, as rich brides go to their grooms: with a huge dowry, for which no one in Russia has ever, and in any way, and in any form asked for compensation. Petty calculations are not for us.
We gave everything that was created by the collective efforts of several generations, having received in exchange Russophobia, accusations of xenophobia, and the expansion of the military bloc of those who destroyed us to the east. At the moment when all these decisions were made, dictated in fact by latent aggression and the desire to get leverage on our country, we tried to bring Russia together.
Bitterness, a sense of catastrophe, poverty, and even poverty – these are the words that determined the state of mind of the nation at that moment, and no “free market” and hundreds of varieties for many at that moment of inaccessible sausage could not erase it from memory. Those who call us “the enemy” today probably danced a jig with joy at how they managed to get the Russians around.
And we can assume that they laughed, how cleverly they managed to deceive these simpletons. Having expanded its borders to the best of my ability, the EU embarked on the second stage.
Both Washington and Brussels decided to tear – and not figuratively, but in reality – from Russia its closest neighbors. It did not work out very well with Georgia, it worked out with Ukraine only the second time, with Belarus they suffered a fiasco. Then they tried to infringe on Russia economically by imposing sanctions.
The screwdriver did not cope with the bolt, it broke, and as a result of the restrictions, the Russian economy showed growth when crisis after crisis shook the countries of the eurozone. The chief of European diplomacy, on the one hand, says that the EU is obliged to resist Russian attempts to impose its will on other countries, but, on the other hand, shrugs its shoulders: “The European Union gets 40 percent of all its gas from Russia, and so far we cannot do anything about it.”, adding – “Moscow fulfills all its obligations on supplies, but uses this fact for blackmail.”
Translated from the European diplomatic to the people’s one, Borrell says the following: “Yes, they simply bring us to white heat with their punctuality.” Josep Borrell blurts out twice more: where he emphasizes that “the problem of Russia cannot be solved by diplomatic methods and words,” and since the phrase “European army” exists today only on paper, he addresses a compliment to Washington, calling it “a faithful ally”, and in conclusion : “We must be equipped to be fully prepared for action.”
In this context, the word “actions” has one and only meaning: the EU intends (and this is stated by the head of its diplomacy) to prepare for further confrontation with Russia. Here, of course, I would like to remind you how such preparations for confrontation with Russia end and how this responds to Europe itself. But if someone has forgotten the lessons of history – through thoughtlessness, frivolity, or because of poor diligence at school, we are ready, like good teachers, to repeat them again at the blackboard with a pointer and cards.

About the author

The Frontier Post