In the works of authors and analysts who write on the Ukrainian topic, it is increasingly possible to find the idea that the solution to the problem is in the area of agreements between Russia and Germany. So, Cyril Benedict compares the Ukrainian situation with history Alsace and Lorraine - the territory for centuries the apple of discord European continental politics.
However, after the Second World War, this territory became the basis for the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community (EOUS), which connected Western European countries to the economic union from which the Common Market originated, the EEC grew, and finally, the European Union with the parliamentary center in Strasbourg - The capital of Alsace and Lorraine.
So, could not the creation of an economic association, similar to the Franco-German, become a guarantor of stability in the region, the author asks, and even the basis of some future Eastern European Economic Union?
Until now, the victorious powers in World War II do not have a full-fledged peace treaty with Germany as a sovereign subject. And the actual situation in the country, on the territory of which tens of thousands of American soldiers and nuclear missiles of the American army are still located, is such that the definition of “occupied” is more appropriate.
“We in Germany since 8 May 1945 have never, by no means, been sovereign fully,” these words of the former Minister of the Interior, and now German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble (CDU), very carefully reflect the actual essence of the matter.
The window of opportunity in today's Germany is actually very small. As for the hypothetical “Eastern European Economic Union”, it is worth remembering what resistance the idea of ECSC evoked at one time among national-minded Europeans.
"Who owns the heart of Eurasia - he owns the world"
Back in the early twentieth century, Halford Mackinder, the father of the English school of geopolitics, formulated his concept of global confrontation of land and sea powers and concluded, based on his logical constructions, that the union of Russia and Germany - the two largest land countries of Eurasia - gives them perfect invulnerability and hegemony over all of Eurasia: whoever controls the heart of Eurasia, he owns the world.
When the British establishment came up with the essence of Mackinder’s ideas, his work was immediately classified, and very soon and for the majority, a global war broke out in Europe, during which the two central powers of Eurasia clashed with each other and were barbarously destroyed.
The end result of the two world wars that followed each other (which, in a geopolitical sense, would probably be more correct to call the 30-summer European war) was a split of the continent, converted partly into an Atlantic colony, partly into a Bolshevik-communist enclave. Thus, the threat of Anglo-Saxon hegemony in Europe was for a long time abducted, and at the end of the twentieth century with the collapse of the USSR, atlantism could triumph a complete victory.
It is remarkable that it was in 1991 that year (although the “unifying” structures had already been in place for many decades), President Bush Sr. felt it necessary to publicly declare the existence of a geopolitical plan for unifying the planet under the authority of a single government. An understandable and pertinent act: after all, the mondialist ideas of the “united Europe” were also guided by Mikhail Gorbachev, who started his own restructuring.
But if in 1991, the architects of mondialism moved to the final stage of the transformation of Europe, then one of the first cornerstones of this building, laid on the ruins of post-war Europe, was the creation of the ECSC.
"Forget the European Union is a coffin"
It must be said that Germany itself owes its present existence to a certain historical “accident”. According to the plan of the Minister of Economics of the Roosevelt Cabinet, Henry Morgentau, Germany defeated in World War II had to turn into a purely agricultural country, and its population reduced by a third into a kind of white slaves.
It seems that this plan, approved by Roosevelt and Churchill, was quite actively implemented in the 1945 – 1947 years (during which the country's exhausted by hunger declined by no less than 5 million people), and probably would have continued at the same pace and Further, if the political reality did not make him radically reconsider.
Firstly, Stalin strongly opposed Morgentau’s plan, and secondly, Germany was divided between two hostile camps. And, in the end, from its part occupied by the Allies, it was decided to make an industrial outpost opposing the Soviet bloc at the eastern border of the West.
But Germany was allowed to rise not earlier than she was subjected to a radical surgery. The Germans remember well how, after World War I, French troops, under the pretext of ensuring “collection of reparations,” occupied the Ruhr region - the industrial heart of Germany, which produces three-quarters of German coal, iron and steel.
The essence of the EOUS project, developed by Jean Monnet and voiced by Robert Schumann (people firmly associated with global financial structures), boiled down to creating a giant transnational trust corporation to which France and Germany pledged to transfer their powers in coal mining, steel production, the development of metallurgy and etc.
For Germany, the ECSC project thus meant the final annexation of the Ruhr. And for both of the industrial powers of Europe, giving up their economic sovereignty in favor of a supranational corporation, a structure reminiscent of the nature and scale of the legendary East India Company, which colonized India and the eastern territories of the British Empire (that is, in fact, the British Empire).
That is, the project, which allegedly promised to “prevent future wars,” actually meant the subordination of European nations to the will of transnational corporations. And, of course, caused a sharp indignation of patriotic forces.
General de Gaulle indignantly called the plans to create supranational authority "devoid of democratic roots and completely irresponsible" and directly called for breaking the "strangling of cartels at the throat of the French economy."
However, the forces were too unequal. In post-war Europe, the ball was ruled by communists and liberals, acting in the implementation of common mondialist plans, as a rule, at the same time.
With the efforts of the new owners of Europe, the ECSC was created, becoming the basis of the Common Market, into which other Western European countries have become more ambiguous.
Since all the key decisions within the ECSC were taken by the votes of France and Germany (more precisely, Britain and the USA behind them), and all the finances of the Common Market were accumulated in the system of central banks (Marshall Plan planted in Europe), the latter meant de facto circulation of Europe in the semblance of some kind of "Indian colony".
At the same time, occupied, bound hand and foot, Germany with a carved heart (Ruhr) and bloody blood became not only the economic donor of the new Europe, but also its living symbol.
Total control over German banks, schools, the press and political life made it possible to fully use the human potential of the defeated country. “White slaves” not only made machines, machines, equipment for the “free world”, filled its soldiers with soldiers under the command of American commanders, but also continued to pay enormous tribute (Germany only finished 3 on October 2010 of the year to pay reparations for the First World War).
And the enormous wealth accumulated by the financial oligarchy made it possible to maintain the economic well-being of the “European community” at a level sufficient to secure an advantage over the Soviet bloc.
All these years, new mondialist structures continued to be created and plans for the “unification of Europe” were completed, which ended by 1992 in the year by the unification of Germany and the creation of the European Union. At the same time, according to the Maastricht Treaty (the Treaty on the European Union), the financial system of Germany was completely replaced by the European Central Bank system, and the national currency of Germany was abolished (or, more precisely, appealed to the euro alienated from the state).
The well-known American economist and leftist politician Lyndon LaRouche assessed 2006 in the year of fifteen years of experience of the European Union: “Forget about the European Union. This is a coffin ... The European Union was created to destroy the countries of continental Europe, to destroy all European nations, and they succeeded in this. In Germany, unemployment was raging, entire industries were curtailed, and now the occupants came - mostly Mitterrand and Thatcher - and imposed the European Union on the whole continent ... This is a ship of slaves. The British equipped it, pushed Europeans there, but did not sit down themselves. From the look and have fun. Germany could be the engine of economic recovery, but without the European Union, the European Central Bank and the euro, these poisonous pills. So they sit with huge unemployment, dying production and lose everything that Germany could do by itself. "
"The whole of Central and Western Europe in the clutches of the oligarchy"
But the “unification of Europe” is not the last word of mondialism. Already before our eyes, over the past few years, the notion of “international law” has eroded and replaced with the notion of “human rights”, which in fact signifies the right to occupy any country in any part of the world where supra-state structures see some or other “violations”.
Having transformed the remnants of traditional European statehood into an optional decoration, the ideologues of mondialism continue their campaign for the "unification of the world." The destruction of state and national bases is followed by the erosion of the institution of the family and other basic bases of a person as a species. It seems that in the final plans for building a “one world” (in which communist, liberal, and democratic tendencies merge) - the destruction of any hierarchy and human institutions, except the monetary hierarchy.
As the same Lyndon LaRouche observes: “The whole of Central and Western Europe is in the clutches of an oligarchy standing above governments. The highest authority there is central banks. And central banks are private central banks ... controlling governments. "
Difficult and flourishing multipolar world against mondialism
So, having reviewed the situation as a whole, we are now ready to take a new look at the Kiev events. We now understand why the Ukrainian problem, which is spreading in an ever more turbulent flow, in fact has only two hard shores - Russia and Germany. And now we are unlikely to call the “Maidan fire” an accident that broke out at that very moment (or even somewhat anticipating it), when the new possibility of rapprochement between Ukraine and Russia and Germany with Germany began to dawn. In the geopolitical reality of such accidents does not happen.
We have already understood the complexity of the prospects for the Russian-German agreements on the Ukrainian problem. But this does not mean that it is hopeless in principle.
And in today's Germany, albeit with an atrophied statehood, an alienated economy and a destroyed historical memory, the germs of revival are still noticeable. Young generations do not understand well why they should be responsible for crimes that they did not commit, while real living criminals freely dispose of their freedom, rights and people's wealth.
The latest scandals about the German gold, arrogant wiretapping of the top Germans and the boorish disregard of the masters of discourse, the voice of their colonial slaves (“f ... of EU” by Madame Nuland) that disappeared in the basements of American banks, open their eyes to the real state of things even with zombied official propaganda German inhabitants.
Thinking Germans look at a strategic alliance with Russia as an opportunity for liberation from their political and economic dependence and liberation from chimeras of mondialism for the whole of Europe.
Finally, no matter how great the power of international finance capital and mondialist structures is today, it is not infinite.
It is worth remembering how in 1954, De Gaulle managed to fail the plans to create the European Defense Community (European Defense Community), according to which, following the national economies, the national armies were to merge into one and reassign to the supranational structures. Naturally, if this project were realized, the mondialist dictatorship in Europe would be much tougher than today.
1963 can also be recalled when, shortly after the Caribbean crisis, which brought the world to the brink of nuclear war, Konrad Adenauer and de Gaulle took a real anti-diadialist demarche, signing a cooperation agreement as a first step towards unifying Europe based on the national sovereignty of nations.
And although this uprising ended in defeat (Adenauer was ousted from power, several assassinations were organized against De Gaulle, and a few years later France was blown up from the inside by the so-called youth revolution, which ensured its sharply left-handedness), it shows completely different sentiments of Europeans than those that imposes mondialist propaganda today.
These moods today are not just alive, they are growing. Apparently, Russian policy in Europe should be built on the full support of these sentiments.
“To build Europe, that is, to unite it, is obviously something essential. This is a truism, but why is it necessary to force a great source of civilization, reason, and welfare to choke on its ashes? .. On what basis can it be built? In reality, only states, naturally strongly different, each with its own soul, its own history, its own language, but only they have the natural right to establish laws and the right to make decisions. And to assume that people can agree with something ... on top of the states is a chimera, ”- these words of De Gaulle (and not at all the creation of the eastern analogue of the ECSC) should obviously become an alternative to the“ European program ”of Russia.
Russia has its own, different from mondialism, project of a free, complex and flourishing multipolar world, with new centers of power emerging before our eyes (China, India, Arab world).
And the project of a new Europe - Europe of traditional Christian values, in which a human person will be preserved, and not a being without a certain gender and identity; Europe, whose peoples will not be turned into a “silent herd” without kind and memory, under the control of the financial aristocracy; A Europe in which all decisions will be made not by a handful of omnipotent bankers, but by real governments of countries defending their national interests - should be part of it.
This is a very difficult, but the only possible our way to Europe.
It is already clear that a way out of the Ukrainian problems is not a matter of one day, it is a long and difficult process. But if you take at least a step along this path, it will be the first step out of chaos.
You just need to believe and know that Russia, armed with its own powerful “European project”, has every opportunity to return the sympathies of the people of Ukraine and turn the energy of chaos into the energy of creation; and in Kiev, which once became the “mother of Russian cities”, is not to become a miserable appendage of the Atlantic colony under the dictatorship of bankers, but the cornerstone of building a new free Europe.