‘We can handle it’

Elena Karaeva

François Hollande, the ex-president of France, recently uncovered (it’s hard to find another word for such recognition of a politician of this level), saying that “Angela Merkel was right. <…> Since 2014, Ukraine has strengthened its military potential. Indeed, the Ukrainian army has become completely different than in 2014. It has become better trained and equipped. It is the merit of the Minsk agreements that Kyiv got such an opportunity.”
Thus, the second participant (and organizer) of the so-called Normandy format, the negotiations within which led to the signing of those same documents in Minsk almost eight years ago, admitted that both Berlin and Paris (and along with them, of course, Kiev ) lied to Moscow. For all questions and all items. Both in particular and in detail, and in general. To the circle.
So that later Moscow can be blamed for the fact that it is precisely “it does not comply with the agreements.”
In everyday life, this is called a brazen lie, and you can get a job for it – this is not about physical impact, but about social isolation, but today and now in international relations such behavior, apparently, is considered good form and it is customary to talk about it publicly. Apparently, in order to brag, as is typical of people suffering from narcissism. Well, of course, they circled Russia around their finger – oh, how cool we are!
In fact, we were shown not so much “coolness” as clowning with a strong smell of provocation. Not to mention the fact that these actions also offended the memory of those who laid down their lives fighting Nazism on the beaches of that same Normandy, which gave the name, in fact, to everything, as it was then customary to say, “peace settlement format.”
The events unfolded a long time ago, so it is not a sin to recall that the discussions of the “Norman Four” began on the day when the 70th anniversary of the Allied landing on the coast of Northern France was celebrated.
Of course, the president of Russia was also invited to the celebrations. And because under the pressure of the USSR (read: Stalin), the second front was opened in France, and not in the Balkans, as Churchill insisted. And because then the contribution of our country to the Victory over the Third Reich did not yet dare to challenge openly.
When it was the Merkel-Hollande couple who came up with the idea to outrage the common memory of the allies in World War II, it’s hard to say, but what you shouldn’t doubt for sure is that the idea was thrown from the other side of the Atlantic. Berlin and Paris, pursuing momentary conjuncture, read the thought of Washington partners as good telepaths, and immediately took to work.
Hollande simply could not dislike double-dealing – by virtue of his nature and behavior.
But one can also imagine the reasons why the ex-chancellor went for such a thing. The weight of the foreign trade balance of Germany at that moment was provided to a very significant extent by American consumption of German household appliances and the automotive industry. The slightest increase in tariffs, and simply threats to raise them – and the vaunted surplus of the German budget could come kaput.
Berlin, after weighing the pros and cons, agreed to the performance. Paris rushed onto the stage, weighing nothing, right behind their senior European partner.
What happened next is history. In the worst sense of the word. In the most monstrous sense and meaning, if we remember that as a result of this bloody big top for many years, hiding behind points and details, Moscow and the people of Donetsk were deceived, and every word of this lie eventually turned into blood, injuries and death of innocent people.
The lives of which “enlightened pan-Europeans” did not take into account at all. But who are they, these Donetsk residents, to even think about them?
But, having lied once, it is difficult not to lie twice. Lies, you know, are addictive. Just as in the case of Russia, Paris and Berlin, each in their own way, began to lie to their own fellow citizens. For almost any significant reason.
This could relate, for example, to military operations against IS in Syria. In which the same Paris, violating, among other things, the EU embargo on the supply of arms, supplied weapons and sent army instructors wherever it considered necessary.
This could also apply to the reception of Syrian refugees. Hollande, testifying at the trial about the terrorist attacks in Paris (then, in November 2015, more than a hundred people died from terrorist bullets), said: he and his ministers “knew that terrorist attacks were being prepared”, “we also knew that participants in the upcoming attacks mixed with the flow of refugees, as well as the fact that the masterminds of the attacks are in Syria.”
The authorities, knowing everything, did absolutely nothing not only to protect their voters, but at least to warn them that the IS group is capable of conducting hostilities in Paris too.
What did Merkel say when she ordered the opening of the EU borders in the summer of 2015?
“We can handle it,” the ex-head of the federal government said. “Let’s do it” turned out to be, to put it mildly, a lie. The terrorist attack on the Christmas market in the capital of Germany (more than a dozen people died, more than fifty were seriously injured), when an IS militant posing as a refugee sent a previously stolen truck (the terrorist shot the driver) at a crowd of passers-by – probably the most striking confirmation of another lie.
Within a few years, any restrictions (external) and restrictions (internal) on the use of lies in the public space of European politics were removed.
It was easy and pleasant to lie in the eyes and behind the eyes. We can say that lies have become the only, but the most effective means of manipulating public consciousness in those European countries that have positioned themselves and are positioning themselves as a chamber of measures and weights, where the canons of truth, goodness, light and justice are stored.
Lies could touch almost any area of life. For example, during the pandemic, millions of French people were forced to quarantine because they were told: “We are at war with the coronavirus, only solidarity can help us all survive.” True, this is already Macron, but the essence does not change from a change in personalities.
In fact, those twenty-odd thousand beds in hospitals, plus the doctors who worked there, should have helped to survive.
But seats in the chambers needed to be reduced to maintain budgetary discipline – this was demanded by Brussels.
Well, how can I tell the truth? So I had to lie. Again and again.
Then I had to lie about why there is no personal protective equipment. Then – why there is no own vaccine. Then – why the vaccine was not effective enough.
Lying turned out to be not just an obsession, it has become so habitual that today any statements by the highest political echelon of European authorities, those that decide the fate of hundreds of millions, cannot be taken seriously.
In all words, no matter how intelligently they are pronounced, one should see a meaning that is exclusively the opposite of what was said.
Where lie and lies rule, the seeds of betrayal sprout perfectly.
Today, practically jungles have grown from these grains, as in the Amazon. Such that you can not pass and not pass.
It is good that our country looks at this empire of lies built on quicksand with due irony. And today Russia is unraveling the intercontinental knot of lies tied up with lies. With patience and calm. And, be sure, unravel it for sure.
Not only according to the criteria of military superiority, which the Nadys were so afraid of (we remember that cowardice is the worst of all vices) “enlightened pan-Europeans”, but according to the norms of truth, truth and justice. Which are universal for everyone. That is why these norms are always stronger in the end.