A lot has been written about the topic of “European integration” of these two unfortunate republics ... Well, I would like to voice another look at the situation (obviously, by the way). So, now it is clear to everyone: there are very different "centers of power" in the world, and this is already like bare facts, and not a bare conspiracy. I sincerely envy those authors who can spell out in detail what the current interests of the Rockefellers are, what the interests of the Rothschilds are and where they coincide, and where they intersect ...
I envy these people sincerely and "black" envy. I would just like to carelessly tell about the secret plans of the “world behind the scenes,” but where are we ... the Rothschilds and some geese did not herd and didn’t run into one rural school barefoot. And at the institute, we, alas, did not study in one group and even didn’t borrow money from each other ... Nevertheless, one can assume quite obvious things: Russia (especially after 1991 of the year) is not the only or even the main center of power sadly, and yet - “power centers” can not coincide with the national capitals of large states.
In order not to be completely trivial, let us first look not at Ukraine, but at Brazil: a large, relatively developed state with a good economy and powerful natural resources. So there recently was a rather messy change of the president, and this was almost not tied to the interests of the “Brazilians” themselves. Well, yes, "corruption", terrible corruption ... If anything, then in the days of the classical Latin American military dictatorships corruption was monstrous ... but whom was it interesting? Yes, almost no one. And certainly not the State Department ...
And what makes you think that Dilma Rousseff is different here, something special, outstanding? System as a system, corruption as corruption ... Any adult who has an idea of real big business and big politics will shrug: there are no miracles ... And nevertheless, Dilma was removed ... removed certain external players that she began to interfere with ...
Well, tell me about your "democracy." But Brazil is far from Ukraine ... The most powerful country in Latin America. A country that under the predecessor of Dilma Lule made a powerful breakthrough in the economy and social security. There's actually 200 of millions of people and a powerful modern industry ... It’s not banana republic never. The new industrial power in full growth ... And yet they defiantly "changed" the president. Your previous president us not satisfied, sorry.
That is, the banana republic remains banana, even ceasing to be in fact. "Kings and cabbage" in full growth. So you say that in Russia “bad democracy”? And where, in fact, better? In France? Where about the new “president of the fifth republic” is known only that he is “a Rothschild man” (the very few of whom the bloggers writing about them managed to meet in person). But Mr. Macron just managed ... and not only. He also managed to make a powerful career in their financial structures, and the next position was the president of the fifth republic. Trifle, of course, but nice!
So what do the French think about this? And do not think anything! The main thing is not Merkel! Fie you, that is, not Le Pen, she is an “extremeist” and not a good person at all. And the Rothschild man is solid ... And Mr. Macron never He was no “politician”, apparently he was called, praised for his previous work. Well, and set a new task, now in the field of politics. Of course, he was surprised ... he tried to scream and fight back ... then he resigned himself ... The president means the president. Such is the "democracy". All the others "politely" pushed. The entire French democratic "politbalganchik" pushed into a dark corner and covered with a veil, like a cage with noisy but unnecessary parrots ... And this is not even Poland, this is France, one of the "backbone" countries of the EU. But no one there is a shirt on himself does not tear and does not let a tear. Everything seems to pretend that everything is normal, all the way through.
No less mysterious is the domestic policy in the EU locomotive country - Germany. Over the past decade, a lot has changed in the world, in Europe, and in Germany. Agree, the very system of international relations has changed (in many ways). Those problems and those rules of the game that took shape immediately after the Cold War became a bit irrelevant. But since 2005, Germany is still “confidently” headed by the same Angela Merkel. And no cholera takes it. That is, the trouble is that it is a very inflexible politician, and it is incomprehensible in general: in whose interests does she act?
When the situation goes beyond any reasonable framework (refugee crisis / Russia), Frau Merkel ... just puffs up her cheeks. And even the scandal with its wiretapping by the US special services did not affect anything at all. This is somehow not at all normal, and it does not fit into any framework. People just get used to taking what is happening for granted and are not always surprised even by blatant absurdity.
In the “democratic” “European Union” Greece, government officials are simply appointed outside. And no one is trying to hide it, it is served for granted. But what about the opinion of the population, but what about the principles of democracy?
So, against the background of all this disgrace, Ukraine more than once or twice declared its independence from Russia. Say, we have sovereignty and we will protect it. After that, all this began to actively discuss. But even that very legendary South Korea, whose model Ukrainians dreamed of at night, never refuted their exceptional orientation towards the USA.
That is, this very “independence” of Ukraine in fact meant complete political loyalty to America. More specifically - loyalty to certain financial clans "on the other side". Trite, I understand. But somehow it is still customary for Russia to blame for the fact that, they say, it “did not work well with Ukraine.”
And, excuse me, does it make sense to work well? If, in fact, the Ukrainian elites are all one thing oriented not to Moscow? After the overthrow of Yanukovych (namely after) it was actively branded with the term “pro-Russian”. However, before the overthrow, the same Yanukovych actively tried to “make friends” with American political circles. Established, so to speak, "bridges to the West." Yanukovych and Co. have made monstrous, incredible efforts to become “their own” in narrow circles of the American political elite.
Now tell me how could Russia have "wedged in"? “At that time” “there were a lot of questions” to Russia on the part of the Ukrainian rulers. Russia constantly provoked their discontent on various occasions and for no reason. That was somehow the case until the second Maidan ... Just after the events of the "revolution of hydration", the last fig leaves were thrown aside and Ukrainian politicians were openly appointed by decision of the "Washington Regional Committee".
And the whole country (its remnants) openly began to steer from abroad. That is, Ukraine completely and finally "went under external control." Yes, in this world there are such “interesting” centers of power, and they will be more significant than Moscow, unequivocally. And Ukrainian politicians are not “independence” all these years have shown us, they have shown loyalty to the guys-financiers-banksters.
In the end, for the majority of Ukrainians, this all ended in a very tragic way. Those “new friends” of the Ukrainian political elite were in no way going to feed Ukraine in the image and likeness of how Russia did it. There was such an unpleasant "ambush" in all this stories. From a political point of view, an alternative to Russia among the countries of the border countries, of course, was and which one! But from the economic all was "not so simple." And this “ambiguity” quite manifested itself from Estonia to Bulgaria, almost continuously.
Here in Russia, many do not understand this and do not want to understand, but political there are alternatives to Russia even after 1991, they are quite interesting. It is on these “alternatives” that the entire Ukrainian political tusk was oriented. Therefore, all the accusations addressed to Russia in the “bad work” with Kiev are groundless, there was nothing to politically catch there. Everything, literally everything: from Yanukovych to the Communists - looked "in the wrong direction." And there was no “Ukrainian foreign policy”, there was a policy focused on those other centers of power in Europe and the USA (as we understood, they do not always coincide with national capitals).
Our endless “buttresses” with Belarus are explained roughly the same: in foreign policy, they are oriented towards those who are stronger (that is, not (!) Towards Russia). You know, all the “scary riddles and secrets” sometimes have very simple answers and answers. Instead of endlessly butting around the upturned myth of some independent foreign policy of the Republic of Belarus, one must finally admit that they stupidly orient themselves towards those who are stronger, that is, not towards us.
That's all the "secrets". And you can endlessly convince them of something - the result will always be the same: they will agree, nod their heads, but in a critical situation (like almost every small nation that needs to be survived) they will orient themselves to a stronger one, that is, not on Russia.
To us, the behavior of Ukrainians / Belarusians seems silly and inadequate, but this is due to a misunderstanding of all political mechanics. From the very beginning, Russophobia was present in Ukraine, it was not originally in Belarus (this was already the “best friend” tried). Nevertheless, the end result is very similar.
And what is interesting, purely from the point of view of profitable / unprofitable, the orientation towards Russia was full of advantages. But without emotions, without fraternity and trenches ... at first glance, it was stupidly more profitable to be friends with Russia, but it only seems. Yes, the whole economy, science, culture, education, defense of Ukraine and Belarus were tied to Moscow. One language is a giant plus in establishing / maintaining economic ties, as are relatives on both sides of the border.
When working “in the western direction,” everything is strictly the opposite: foreign languages, the lack of powerful economic ties, a fundamental unwillingness to “buy” the Ukrainian / Belarusian, another story, other technological standards ... etc. Even for the historically “super-industrial” Czech Republic, the transition to Western markets resulted in the closure of many industries. This is the Czech Republic, which really Europe (unlike, for example, from Poland or Romania). And there everything went to pieces after leaving the Eastern Bloc. What can I say about the Ukrainian industry? Its survival completely depended on Russia.
That is, if viewed from this point of view, reorientation towards the West looks like sheer idiocy. Economic losses will be simply monstrous. So it is not clear to us, so it seems to us that the actions of the Minsk / Kiev authorities are utter nonsense. But we do not take into account the political aspect ... purely political. The biggest fish in this “political pond” is by no means Russia.
That is why Ukrainian politicians frankly killed the country, but were friends with the West (trying to be friends). And this is not absurd or idiotic. Here, even France suffered monstrous reputational (Mistrali) and financial (agricultural products) losses, but is not going to reconsider the policy of sanctions against Russia. Even France! And why? And the French ruling elites first of all look at who is stronger politically, and then they make decisions. At the same time, economic losses are a sad thing, but not critical.
And this is France! What do you want from Ukraine? Or, especially from Moldova, that is, Belarus? We, for example, do not look at Poland at all or are looking with frank irony. But for Ukrainians / Moldovans / Belarusians, Poland is “wow”. People don't just look at her, they look at her bottom-up, hands at the seams. Even to Poland, and what can we say about Germany or, God forbid, the USA ...
The fact that France was absurd in Ukraine has become a frank suicide, but the difference is only in the degree of “horror to the high authorities” and the consequences of this horror. The logic in Paris and in Kiev is the same: you need to focus on those who are stronger.
The results in Ukraine already in the 2014 year were simply fabulous: the gap in real economic, cultural, family ties with Russia went without any reasonable compensation. Only in the 2014 year, Ukraine could receive industrial orders for 17 billions of dollars from Russia ... instead, it received an economic collapse and thousands of coffins of Ukrainian recruits ... But no one doubted anything ... you know, we cannot be more Ukrainians than the Ukrainians themselves . If it is their choice (to bend over to overseas banksters), then it is their choice ...
The result of this choice is poverty and war. But it was precisely this choice that the Ukrainian elites made, and we cannot change anything here. This was most clearly manifested in the personal relationships of people living on opposite sides of the border. I remember the spring 2014 and the beginning of the punitive operation in the south-east. So, in the “Russian Spring” a “story of two sisters” was cited: the one who lives in Kiev, calls the one that in Moscow sends her husband to ATO, cries. Well, a Muscovite restrained sympathy ... but the point is not that the point is that you need money for a vest and a helmet (to save the life of a potential “ATO hero”). And, strangely enough, she didn’t meet with the understanding of the Kyiv resident, she didn’t meet at all ... That’s the end of the relationship.
That's what's interesting: if Ukraine had a war with Romania, Poland, Hungary or Turkey, then Russia would certainly help, help at all levels ... and on the state, and on the personal, and much more than the so-called "whole world". After all, it is not so easy to call Warsaw, Berlin, Paris and ask for “money for a helmet” ... But for some reason, the first, last and main war of Ukraine happened against Russian citizens of Ukraine from the southeast. So here is the “family-like.”
And all because political decisions in Kiev were made not on the basis of some emotional moments (as many people think in Russi), but purely on the basis of a sober calculation: we follow the leader ... And this leader is not Russia. Sober and cold calculation, no more, that is why all this nightmare began to happen in the south-east. At the same time, Ukrainian nationalists are secondary and tertiary, the reason is geopolitical and how they see them in Kiev ... It’s absolutely pointless and useless to put pressure on the conscience and point out the historical ties between the two peoples. Nothing personal - pure business.
It's just that they ask us too often, how could a group of nationalist scumbags so distort everything? So: initially, the whole thing was not at all in the nationalists and not in the scumbags ... they gained strength much later. The trouble was precisely in the Ukrainian politicians, completely focused on “certain financial / political circles” in the West ... that is why they were engaged in outright nonsense (from our point of view) and simply killed their country (again from our point of view).
The favor of certain influential circles in the Anglo-Saxon world meant (and means!) Much more to them than the future of their own country. What does the idiots nationalists in painted embroidery? Kitty, don't be so naive! No, now these very nationalists have become a real power (which someone else rules all the same), but this is now.
One of the reasons permanent Conflicts on all issues with the Republic of Belarus are precisely “contacts” of Belarus with “the whole world,” and specifically with well-defined influential people in Europe. Moreover, Belarusians like it very much that the “dictate of Moscow” is a serious counterbalance. In short, the Belarusians were engaged in “geopolitics” and fell like chickens into oshchip ... That is, the “post-collective farm” elite of the Republic of Belarus was sincerely convinced that it would deceive everyone and use everyone against each other, the reality was not so pretentious.
Those politicians who are in Europe, they turned out to be much more professional than those in Minsk. The result was a kind of “oil painting”: the Republic of Belarus is under tough political sanctions - Lukashenka was not allowed into Europe long ago. He is an outcast and the “last dictator of Europe”, but the foreign policy of Belarus turned out to be in a strange way focused on that very Europe (but not on Russia).
Such a kind of "achievement" of Belarusian diplomacy: you can endlessly talk about a certain "rapprochement" of Belarus with the EU, but in fact Belarus in Europe is a rogue state. In this case, the head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Belarus only looks to the West And Europe quite frankly looks at the same Belarusians as people of the second (third) grade. In response, the political leadership of the Republic of Belarus demonstrates understanding, interest and “striving to get closer”.
This, in turn, causes disgust in Russia. In response to what the phrase follows: but the Russians do not respect us ... In principle, yes: Belarus does not cause any respect today or in Russia. But for some reason, in the first case, a blatant figure of silence is used (we need to grow to Europe / go to Europe).
The reason for all this circus is quite simple: the Belarusian “elites” need a counterweight to Russia in the person of the same EU / US to retain power. Since the country they manage to manage is frankly bad, this need becomes a priority - the government must be kept at all costs. And how will you do it, if the standard of living is the lowest in the region (perhaps better than Moldova / Ukraine)? The only solution is “to establish contacts with the West”.
Naturally, neither Europe nor the United States did not intend to or intend to feed Belarus, as they did not intend to feed Ukraine. Here, by the way, there is a brutal contradiction between the interests of the elites and the common people both in Ukraine and in Belarus: elites first of all need political support at any cost. Well, look: the living standards of ordinary Ukrainians have long struck every bottom and hang out at the very North African level, but the mass discontent of ordinary Ukrainians does not pose any risk to Mr. Poroshenko. Generally no.
Because the political future of Mr. Poroshenko does not depend on the well-being of ordinary Ukrainians. Mr. Poroshenko was nominated by very serious people (far from Obama), Representative who spoke Mr. Biden. And it’s absolutely pointless to call for simple Ukrainians for something today and try to “build bridges with them”. Ukraine today is not Ukrainians even once.
In the same way, having their own foreign policy, comrades from Minsk long ago established “serious contacts” with influential people in Europe. Always embarrassed very much, when frankly servile, pro-Western policy is issued for the manifestation of a kind of "national sovereignty." And in this model, the West as such is absent: ostensibly the Republic of Belarus is in itself quite a peace-loving country and does not want to “bark” with its neighbors, who are also very “peace-loving”. And Russia is inciting something there and has certain “imperial ambitions”.
The problem was just that this model is not entirely correct. The Baltic countries themselves today do not make any independent decisions and are not going to accept them. They lack such an "option." These guys "sing with someone else's voice," dance to someone else's tune. What kind of “good neighborly relations” with other puppets can be discussed is a complete and absolute mystery. Miracles, you know, does not happen. Poland has a degree of "sovereignty" a little bit more, but not very much. By and large, Poland is a satellite of certain US government structures. The Poles do not make their own decisions.
Those. they serve not to some abstract "American people", but to quite specific circles / centers of power across the ocean. Any such, excuse me, “establishing good-neighborly relations”? How do you imagine that?
In general, the “dream” of the Belarusian ruling circles is to repeat the “positive” experience of Ukraine / Georgia. That is, get a "label on the reign" from overseas. And problems with the preservation of power after that do not have. Ordinary Georgians can live simply badly, and maybe very badly - on the political situation in the country and on the careers of individual politicians, this is almost not displayed. The same applies to the beautiful country of Ukraine: the complete collapse of its economy had no impact on the career of President Poroshenko. The role is played (and what!) By the satisfaction / dissatisfaction of the overseas curators, and Poroshenko will curry favor with them (lately, not very successfully).
Forgive, of course, but the Belarusian elites, like the elites in Ukraine, by and large, do not care about the people from the high bell tower. The only thing that interests them is the power and the “reinforced concrete guarantees” of its preservation. And they are guided in this matter not by Moscow even once. Therefore, all the accusations about the loss of the last "Cinus" maladjusted. As well as reproaches about the fact that someone out there "profukal Ukraine". We could not “fake” her. If people in Kiev were loyal to the Western centers of power and influence from the very beginning, then at least kill you about the wall - all decisions will not be taken in your favor. You can offer as many material gains as you want - there will always be little, little, not enough.
But there are no complaints about the Americans / Europeans - they immediately offered a lot. It is clear that with this “interesting scheme” ordinary Ukrainians / Belarusians / Georgians definitely remain “in flight”. Neither the EU nor the US are going to feed anyone at their own expense. And those “shadow influential structures” - they are already influential, why should they feed someone?
Therefore, many in the same Belarus do not fully understand the meaning of the phrase “rapprochement with the West” ... There seems to be two levels of understanding: for “our own” and for “suckers”, how in the USSR at the end of 80's about “reforms” ... So in Belarus today, a narrow elite group plans to strengthen and strengthen its power in this way, and the “suckers” have to pay for all this pleasure. So to urge the leadership of the Republic of Belarus to "decide" today is meaningless and useless: it has already been determined for a long time.
Constant spitting and attacks on Russia have that very simple reason: no one was going to move in our direction. By the way, the hysteria of the Belarusian leaders over the Kiev coup / Russian spring is explained by this: both the West and Russia behaved “wrong”. About Ukrainian "sovereignty" just frankly "wiped his feet." It was this offensive fact (and the obvious conclusions from it) that caused a frank nervous breakdown in Minsk.
The Belarusian comrades were sure that they would endlessly “dance around” and give them compliments, but you see, it turned out to be ... legs in hand - and the hayloft. In fact, the very hysteria in Minsk continues to this day: after February-March 2014, people realized that their “sovereignty” is a very, very conditional thing ... and they still cannot recover.
Therefore, it is at least naive to expect from the Belarusian leadership a prudent, adequate policy, and even less so the observance of certain “allied obligations”. In general, the problem of “Belarusian ethnogenesis” is the problem of maintaining power by a very narrow group of people in Minsk (completely Russian-speaking).