REGNUM: The What characterizes the perception of the EU Vilnius failure?
Indeed, it is reasonable to ask this question, since the majority of those interested in the issue are concentrating on possible behaviors of Ukraine and Russia. At the same time, it is important to understand how ready the European Union is to continue the negotiation process with Ukraine and discuss the Ukrainian issue with Russia. It seems to me that the most unexpected thing at the Vilnius stage for Brussels was not the failure of settlements on the domestication of Ukraine, but the fact that the Ukrainian question exposed the growing demarcation among the EU member countries and turned out to be a catalyst for this process. In particular, a comparison of two agendas of the EU presidency: Lithuania (second half of 2013) and Greece (first half of 2014) can serve as a vivid illustration of today's polar views on the further development of the European Union. Thus, in the Lithuanian understanding, the main thing is seen in the active expansion of the European Union in the post-Soviet space. Greece also believes that at present it is necessary to focus on strengthening the integration of the European Union in the sense of internal consolidation, primarily in the financial sector and stimulating industries that are pivotal for national economies. The Lithuanian and Greek positions, which are diametrically opposed to each other, reflect not only national approaches, but also demonstrate increasing fragmentation in the European Union. In particular, it is obvious that the southern wing of the European Union and the northern part of the EU are completely different in their views on the formation of the internal and external policies of the EU. The “newcomers” occupy the halfway position between them - the CEE countries. Another group of countries uses the current discussions in the EU for self-affirmation, including Bulgaria and Romania. At the same time, the European Commission makes a claim to Germany’s EU flagship for subsidizing the energy supply of the industry, thereby weakening its competitive advantages in the global market. However, I want to emphasize that the question of Ukraine is only a trigger, and the cause of the marked demarcations is different. By and large, this is a historic confrontation between the Euro-Atlantic and pro-European lobby in the European Union. In a generalized form, the listed processes can be regarded as an approximation of the volume of negative potential in the EU to the level of critical mass, fraught with an internal political crisis in the European Union.
REGNUM: The How realistic fears of the political crisis in the European Union?
I think it is premature to talk about the uncontrollability of the European Union, and while we can only focus on the pluralism of opinions, the fact is that the view of the Euro-Atlantic lobbies of the EU is often dominant in decision-making, and especially in their implementation. At the same time, the activity of the pro-European lobby is increasing, and among the member countries there are some kind of zones of influence of both groups. Whether the current slow-moving confrontation between them in the active phase will change, depends on external factors. For example, the crisis in the eurozone was, as you know, an aggravation of the crisis of sovereign debt in Greece in the spring of 2010. Before that, the Greek crisis was going through a long incubation period, and it acquired a public character after the key part of Greek debts was bought by the American financial group JP Morgan. Her doubts about the solvency of Greece were widely spread in the world, they were supported by the influential American investor George Soros and the IMF, which is dominated by the American representation. As a result, for about four years the Greek crisis in the international information space was positioned as a projection of the economic crisis in the euro area. Now the resource of this instrument of weakening the competitiveness of the European Union is close to exhaustion. At the same time, the motive for preserving the EU in a state of stagnation persists, as its primordial partner competitors can not overcome their own stagnation, despite the fact that five years have passed since the crisis. In this regard, a small political crisis in the European Union as a successor to the crisis in the euro area, apparently, would be to them by the way.
REGNUM: The addition of natural economic competition, more than the United States compete with the European Union?
The topic is extensive. I would stop at the difference of their goals with regard to Ukraine. The European Union sees the Ukrainian direction as an opportunity to acquire a capacious market for the sale of its goods and, thus, to stimulate the development of its economy. In the United States, tasks seem to me different. In their analysis, I proceed from the fact that the placement of personnel should reflect the tactical and strategic goals that the state sets itself. In this sense, American figures who supported the Ukrainian opposition on the Maidan - John McCain, senator from Arizona, and Victoria Nuland, US Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, can be seen as the personification of American expectations from the possible inclusion of Ukraine in the Euro-Atlantic orbit. So, McCain is tirelessly working on his image of a supporter of confrontation with Russia, and he is currently the "best" among American politicians in this category. Consequently, his presence on the Maidan can be regarded as a desire to give the ongoing in Ukraine a resonant anti-Russian sound. As for Nuland, from the familiarization with her track record (see the website of the US State Department), it is clear that the profile of her official activities is to provide diplomatic support for US foreign policy actions, mainly against Russian interests. It is also noteworthy that she receives state awards from the United States on the recommendation of the Defense Ministry. In this light, the appearance of Nuland on the Maidan, given her professional specialization, suggests that Ukraine may be interested in the Americans in terms of military confrontation with Russia, in particular, the Ukrainian territory is most likely seen by the eventual expansion of the European element of the US missile defense system, example, as a more winning option than Polish. And what are the reasons to think otherwise? I'm asking myself why Ukraine was not visited, for example, neither Warren Buffett (a significant figure in the US business) nor Bill Gates (one of the leading figures in the world of technological innovation). Hence, the American elite has not yet seen any intention to perceive Ukraine as a field for the application of investments or advanced American technologies. To this I want to add that Nuland represents the administration of the Democrats, and McCain - the Republican opposition, that is, together they reflect the whole spectrum of the main American political forces. Hence it becomes obvious that Ukraine does not attract the United States by itself, but only as another platform for military-political confrontation with Russia.
REGNUM: The What did you mean when you mentioned that the CEE countries - EU members take on domestic and foreign policy of the EU half-way position?
The statements made recently in relation to Ukraine in the countries of the Visegrad Group (Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic - I place them not in significance, but in alphabetical order) indicate two fundamental points. The first is the appearance and distribution in these countries of criticism of the European Commission for the inept and, in general, rough conduct of the Ukrainian campaign. Here you can see the desire to join the process of clarifying relations on the Ukrainian issue unfolding in the European Union and to place responsibility not just on the European Commission, but on its leadership. The second point is a penetrating insult for the scornful treatment of Ukraine. Here offended ethnic feelings appear, as Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic belong to the Slavic peoples and are historically close to the Ukrainians. Hungary also brings with Ukraine a common история. In these countries, some commentators even resort to the phrase "invasion of the Slav civilization space." I would like to recall that the ideas of panslavism originated and acquired organizational forms not in Russia or in Ukraine, but in the Czech Republic as a form of ethnic self-preservation in response to attempts at Western assimilation. The upsurge of national dignity, celebrated in the Visegrad countries, does not look random, and it seems a long-awaited reaction to the consistent suppression by the West of the Slavic branch of Europe. The most significant events in the Euro-Atlantic anti-Slavic policy are the bombing of Yugoslavia, the initiation of its collapse, the ousting of the Slavs from Kosovo and the destruction of Slavic values there, discrimination of the Russian-speaking population in the Baltic countries, treating Ukraine as a second-rate country and treating it as a bargaining chip, constant humiliation Bulgaria Against this background, the thesis held among the Visegrad citizens is clear that the Eastern policy of the European Union should not be narrowed to the Eastern Partnership and, moreover, be identical to it. Apparently, the most far-sighted Vysehrad intellectuals are beginning to realize that their countries can be included in the above chain of events related to the humiliation of the Slavs if they continue to linger with the expression of objective assessments of what is happening and demonstrate humility.
REGNUM: The What caused such a biased attitude towards the Slavic peoples?
Dominant in the Euro-Atlantic space concept of universalism excludes national characteristics and sets targets for their leveling, because it treats them as an obstacle to the spread of their ideology and control the masses (to use the terminology of the concept). Oddly, universalism borrows from Marxism theory classes, which gives his own interpretation, giving priority to the so-called middle class, which in its content he sees the same for all countries, and the presence of national traits corrodes this unity.
Genetically inherent in the Slavs sense of freedom, careful attitude to culture and history, the ability to unite peoples, together with them to flourish without division into their own and others, to raise other peoples to restore their rights, can not but cause concern among authors and supporters of the policy of national depersonalization in Europe . Let's pay attention to the fact that in the First and Second World Wars, Russia (the USSR) was the main force opposing the aggressor. In general, the Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Bulgarians, Ukrainians, Byelorussians, Russians, and Southern Slavs have always demonstrated their intransigence in upholding their national dignity, acting as fighters for independence in Central, Eastern and Southern Europe. I cite these facts in order to show that the Slavs with their freedom-lovingness, independence of judgments and willingness to render disinterested help can set a "bad example" for other European peoples. Therefore, the focus of Euro-Atlantic universalism is directed, first of all, to suppressing the Slav independent spirit.
REGNUM: The When, in your opinion, had the prejudice of the West toward the Slavic peoples?
If you follow logic that is understandable to Western consciousness, then you should turn to the creative heritage of the psychoanalyst S. Freud, widely popular in the West. In particular, he advises to analyze the childhood and adolescence of a person in order to understand his adult psychology. You can apply this technique to early Europe. Thus, the Holy Roman Empire (successor to the Western Roman Empire) is the most significant and largest state association with which our era began in Europe and in which the sophisticated researcher will discover the contours of today's European Union, declared in the 9th century AD. one of its main foreign policy priorities is the colonization of the Slavic lands. Prior to this, the Slavs, unlike most other European nations, were outside the protectorate of the Roman Empire and lived according to their own principles, which today are called the principles of federalism. Since more than a thousand-year period since then, the configuration of countries has repeatedly changed in Europe, political slogans have been updated, there has been a natural change of political leaders, but the content of Western policy in the eastern direction has remained unchanged - since it was formulated by the Holy Empire. It is enough to turn to today's directions of NATO expansion and the expansion of the European Union.
REGNUM: The How widely it is common in the western society?
It seems that the above historical anachronism, which focuses on Russia, serves as the core of Euro-Atlantic politics, and many representatives of the Western elite are under the hypnosis of these ideas. At the same time, opinions of Western sensible political and public figures are heard, recognizing that in the context of globalization, the current practice of relations with Russia is undermining rather than strengthening the competitive advantages of the West in the world. It should also be noted that since the Slavic peoples do not have any territorial or political claims to the heirs of the Roman Empire, it is reasonable to assume that the resource and initiative to normalize relations lie in freeing the West from the ideas of the Slavic peoples conquering and re-educating figuratively speaking, the ball is on the west side. In this regard, it can be stated that the West, using, again, Western terminology, faces a serious conceptual challenge of shaping approaches to building relationships in the world that meet modern realities. In particular, we must respectfully respect the respectable age of the ideology of Atlantis, the birth of which dates from 1910, and provide it with a well-deserved rest. I remember a popular proverb among American politicians that the old dog cannot be taught new tricks. Avoiding the response to this challenge can be perceived as intellectual helplessness. Sometimes it seems to me that modern vices in the form of terrorism, corruption, religious fundamentalism are a kind of side shoots on the stem of a plant called “opposition of the East and the West”. I would like to hope that the Ukrainian question will give impetus to the EU’s rethinking of its policy in the eastern direction and the development by Brussels of the principles of normal business relations.
REGNUM: The How do you see further developments in Ukraine and around it?
This question excites many, and in the information space you can find scenarios for every taste. All of them rely on the fact that the representatives of the Ukrainian state apparatus declare their readiness to resume negotiations with the European Commission in the very near future, and the Ukrainian opposition swears to continue the Euro-protests. In this regard, the Ukrainian leadership faces a number of questions. In particular, should he compete with the opposition in the implementation of the EU statements on Ukraine. The point is that even in the document of the European Parliament from 6 November 2003 titled "On the neighborhood of an enlarged Europe: a new framework for relations with our eastern and southern neighbors," concerns were expressed about the possibility of the formation of a common economic space of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan, and proposed take measures to counteract this. The next question is whether the Ukrainian leadership needs to consider these recommendations of the European Parliament as extraterritorial and having the kind of obligation for Ukraine to limit its own economic power? And the third question is whether Ukraine should shy away from rapprochement with Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia, if the European Union documentally recognizes that in this case Ukraine becomes invulnerable, that is, independent.