By Rostislav Ishchenko, translated by Jafe Arnold –
Ukraine has [unintentionally] done a great deal to make Europe understand and accept the need to reconcile with Russia, to forget about the sanctions, and to start re-planning its fate – to begin the transition from the Euro-Atlantic to the Euro-Asian choice. Taking into account the last episode with Babchenko, Poroshenko, Gritsak and Lutsenko which saw European politicians and the media as the audience, Ukraine has done even more than depended on it.
Yet the thing is: absolutely nothing has depended on Ukraine. Hence why Kiev’s efforts have yielded zero results. And no matter how many zeroes you multiple, you still have zero.
Despite the fact that many of my colleagues have been impressed by the Kiev regime’s total, implausible stupidity and have elevated Ukrainian politicians and Petro Poroshenko himself’s role in the pivot towards Russian-European conciliation, I consider it my duty to restore trampled justice and point to the true peacemaker, the true screenwriter and director of the inevitable, sincere Russian-European reconciliation. You all know this incomparable, outstanding personality : it’s US President Donald Trump.
Yes, it is to him that we should be grateful for Europe’s epiphany. And it’s not about the small failures of the US on the Korean and Syrian fronts. Before Trump, other presidents suffered defeats in these kinds of cases. Moreover, Assad and the third Kim have turned out to be tough nuts to crack, stubborn in their defense, clever in their diplomacy, and ready to go until the end. It’s not that Trump has been unlucky with his Ukrainian partners. After all, it wasn’t Trump who brought them to power, not he who selected and groomed them. The incubator of these imbeciles was set up by the Americans in Ukraine not only before Obama, but before Bush Jr. The main events took place in the [Bill] Clinton era. Europeans themselves had a hand in this negative selection of an Ukrainian elite.
The United States has experienced similar and even much more serious problems before (the Cuban missile crisis, the Arab oil embargo, defeat in the Vietnam war, the failure of the operation to free the American Embassy in Tehran, the mass-death of Marines in Lebanon and special forces in Somalia, etc.), yet Europe never expressed its desire to find an alternative to the alliance with Washington.
And then there was the St. Petersburg Economic Forum happened. But the massive, billion-dollar contracts with European firms, including those signed which circumvented the sanctions, mean nothing. American companies have also signed similar contracts for billions of dollars. This is pleasant, as it shows the failure of the West’s sanctions strategy, but it does not affect the relationship between Europe and the United States. Even the huge number of participants in the forum is just evidence of the failure of the policy of internationally isolating Russia. Well, the US could not isolate the USSR, but it managed to destroy it – with European support, by the way.
Everything that happened in St. Petersburg in 2018, also happened a year or two ago. Except for one thing. Until now, there had been no such thing as the French President, Emmanuel Macron (who symbolizes the EU), the Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe (personifying the US’ eastern allies), and the IMF’s managing director Christine Lagarde (representing international financial organizations) acting as if they were the Russian President’s entourage and not even trying to hide their inferiority to Vladimir Putin.
Until now, there was only one politician in the world behind whom they agreed to hang back – the President of the United States of America…Their demonstrative self-abasement in Saint Petersburg means only one thing – a new leader has appeared in the world and they have recognized him by performing an appropriate ritual dance around him.
And that’s not all. Just before the St. Petersburg economic forum in Sochi, Putin was visited by a mass pilgrimage of those EU leaders who could not come to Saint Petersburg, or whose problems could not be delayed. A significant part of Western leaders visited the reception of the President of Russia (in Sochi or in Saint Petersburg), checking their readiness to switch over to a new camp and probing the ground regarding the possibility of negotiating exclusive conditions for cooperation. Merkel, Macron, Abe, Lagarde – the cream of the globalist establishment, the people who cemented the foundation of US authority over the collective West – suddenly turned out to be not just extras at Putin’s event, but also actively and sincerely criticized the US…
They have not yet left Washington, but they are already looking for a way out and are closely studying an alternative leader.
So what has happened and what does Trump have to do with this?
As we can recall, the fight in the 2016 US elections was not just between the Republican candidate and the Democratic candidate, but between the globalist Clinton and Trump, who was not quite deservedly, but technically correctly called an American nationalist.
Clinton’s policy was clear. She offered to continue to increase Western pressure on opponents (Russia, China and their allies), hoping that the total resource superiority of the West would allow them to win the race for leadership and that the irreversible consequences of economic war would break Russia and China before the West would feel their impact. The costs of war (economic or hybrid) were supposed to be covered by the trophies after victory.
Trump criticized this strategy, arguing that it has been pursued for more than a decade and that Washington is now further from results than it was a decade ago…Trump proceeded from the fact that America is losing resources much faster than its opponents and is being gripped by permanent crisis while Russia has weathered the global crisis relatively calmly. Therefore, he proposed to change the US’ strategy, to focus primarily on the internal problems of the United States, and only return to the policy of confrontation with Russia once they are resolved. In order to “make America great again,” Trump had to reduce foreign policy activity, move to a policy of full or partial isolationism, and redirect the funds that went towards aggressive foreign policy to solving domestic problems.
Trump successfully came to power. And then it turned out that despite the accuracy of his diagnosis and the fundamental correctness of his treatment plan, he could not implement his program as a whole. It is no coincidence that Trump’s course has been embattled, and that he has been threatened with impeachment, only insofar as he has not agreed to leave foreign policy to the hawks’ fiefdom and focus on solving economic problems.
In the end, Trump has once again defeated his opponents and not only held onto power, but has also created a good reserve for re-election for a second term. Now Trump’s popularity in the US shows record high levels. But his popularity among Europeans is suffering.
The point is that by leaving foreign policy to the hawks, Trump took a forced step, one forced not by the resistance of the globalists, but by objective reality. The United States cannot move to an isolationist policy for the sake of its economy as long as most of its domestic consumption is achieved through unequal exchange which can only be maintained by military-political hegemony.
At the same time, however, Trump has not backed down from pursuing protectionist policies, trying in the very least to reduce the negative balance in foreign trade. Here he automatically stepped on the interests of not only China, but also the EU and Japan. Moreover, in an effort to reduce the US’ budget deficit, he began to insist on a sharp increase in allied contributions to NATO. In essence, what Trump did was simultaneously engage in tough economic competition with the EU and demand that the EU increase its current military spending.
If before partnership with the United States provided Europe with the opportunity to spend almost no money on security and receive good dividends, receiving an equal share from the the robbery of the rest of the world, then now it is clear that for the sake of their salvation, the United States, having lost the capacity to rob the rest of the world, has decided to start robbing Europe.
And the EU has decided to defend itself. But this requires an alternative to the American system of security and economic development. And only Russia can provide that.
So Trump, driven by the desire to restore the US’ industrial power and financial stability, in a clash with reality was forced to take steps that could bring him success if Europe didn’t squirm and agreed to sacrifice itself for American ambitions.
But the EU has begun to fight back, the rest of the allies have also been reminded of “eternal interests”, and the US has found itself in a situation in which Washington itself will be threatened with isolation if its allies cross over to Russia. Thank Trump and his good intentions.