Two banks
In the works of authors and analysts writing on the Ukrainian topic, one can more and more often come across the idea that the solution to the problem lies in the area of agreements between Russia and Germany. Thus, Kirill Benediktov compares the Ukrainian situation with history Alsace and Lorraine are territories that for centuries have been the bone of contention for European continental politics.
However, after World War II, it was this territory that became the basis for the creation of the "European Coal and Steel Community" (ECSC), which linked the Western European countries into an economic union, from which the Common Market emerged, the EEC grew, and, finally, the current European Union with a parliamentary center in Strasbourg - the capital of Alsace and Lorraine.
So could the creation of an economic association, like the Franco-German one, become a guarantor of stability in the region, asks the author, 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 entity. And the actual state of affairs in the country, on whose territory tens of thousands of American soldiers and nuclear missiles of the American army are still located, is such that the definition of "occupied" would be more suitable for it.
“We in Germany have never been fully sovereign since May 8, 1945,” - these words of the former Minister of the Interior and now the Minister of Finance of Germany Wolfgang Schäuble (CDU) very carefully reflect the factual 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 very idea of the ECSC aroused in its time among nationally 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 the global confrontation between land and sea powers and concluded, based on his logical constructions, that the alliance of Russia and Germany - the two largest land countries of Eurasia - gives them perfect invulnerability and hegemony over the whole of Eurasia: who owns the heart of Eurasia - he owns the world.
When the essence of Mackinder's ideas reached the British establishment, his works were immediately classified, and very soon and for the majority, a global war broke out in Europe, in the course of which the two central powers of Eurasia clashed and suffered barbaric destruction.
The end result of two consecutive world wars (which, in a geopolitical sense, it would probably be more correct to call a 30-year European war) was the split of the continent, partly turned into an Atlantic colony, partly into a Bolshevik-communist enclave. Thus, the threat of Anglo-Saxon hegemony in Europe was averted for a long time, and at the end of the XNUMXth century, with the collapse of the USSR, Atlanticism could triumph with complete victory.
It is remarkable that it was precisely in 1991 (although the “unifying” structures had been operating for many decades by that time) that President Bush Sr. considered it necessary to publicly declare the existence of a geopolitical plan to unite the planet under the rule of a single government. An understandable and appropriate act: after all, it was precisely the mondialist ideas of a “united Europe” that Mikhail Gorbachev was guided by when he started his perestroika.
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 - this is the coffin
It must be said that Germany owes its very existence to a certain historical "accident". According to the plan of the Minister of Economics of the Roosevelt cabinet, Henry Morgenthau, defeated in World War II, Germany was 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 1945-1947 (during which the population exhausted by hunger of the country decreased by at least 5 million people), and, probably, would have continued to be carried out at the same pace and further, if the political reality did not force him to radically reconsider.
Firstly, Stalin strongly opposed the plan of Morgenthau, and secondly, Germany was divided between two hostile camps. And, in the end, it was decided to make an industrial outpost from its part occupied by the allies, opposing the Soviet bloc on the eastern border of the West.
But Germany was not allowed to rise until she underwent radical surgery. The Germans remember well how, after the First World War, French troops, under the pretext of providing a "collection of reparations", occupied the Ruhr region - the industrial heart of Germany, producing three quarters of German coal, iron and steel.
The essence of the ECSC project, developed by Jean Monnet and voiced by Robert Schumann (people firmly connected with global financial structures), boiled down to the creation of a giant transnational corporation-trust, to which France and Germany pledged to transfer their powers in matters of coal mining, steel production, metallurgy development and etc.
For Germany, the ECSC project thus meant the final annexation of the Ruhr. And for both industrialized powers of Europe - the abandonment of their economic sovereignty in favor of a supranational corporation, a structure that resembled in its nature and scale the legendary East India Company, which at one time colonized India and the eastern territories of the British Empire (that is, in fact, the British Empire was).
That is, the project, which supposedly promised "prevention of future wars", in fact meant the subordination of European nations to the will of transnational corporations. And, naturally, it caused a sharp indignation of the patriotic forces.
General De Gaulle indignantly called the plans to create a supranational power "devoid of democratic roots and completely irresponsible" and directly called for breaking the "noose of cartels at the throat of the French economy."
However, the forces were too unequal. In post-war Europe, the communists and liberals ruled the ball, acting in the implementation of common mondialist plans, as a rule, at the same time.
Through the efforts of the new masters of Europe, the ECSC was created, becoming the basis of the Common Market, into which other Western European countries joined on even more ambiguous conditions.
Since all key decisions within the ECSC were made by the votes of France and the Federal Republic of Germany (more precisely, by Britain and the USA behind them), and all the finances of the Common Market were accumulated in the system of central banks (planted in Europe by the "Marshall plan"), the latter meant de facto turning Europe into the semblance of some kind of new "Indian colony".
At the same time, occupied Germany tied hand and foot with a cut out heart (Ruhr) and bled blood became not only an economic donor of a new Europe, but also its living symbol.
Total control over German banks, schools, press and political life made it possible to fully use the human potential of the defeated country. "White slaves" not only produced machines, machines, equipment for the "free world", filled its armed forces with soldiers under the command of American commanders, but also continued to pay a colossal tribute (Germany finished paying reparations for the First World War only on October 3, 2010).
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 provide an advantage over the Soviet bloc.
All these years, new mondialist structures continued to be created and plans for the "unification of Europe" were implemented, which ended by 1992 with the unification of Germany and the creation of the European Union. At the same time, according to the Maastricht Treaty (Treaty on the European Union), the financial system of Germany was completely replaced by the system of the European Central Bank, and the national currency of Germany was abolished (or, more precisely, turned into the euro alienated from the state).
The famous American economist and leftist politician Lyndon LaRouche assessed the fifteen-year experience of the European Union in 2006: “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 peoples, and in this they have succeeded. In Germany, unemployment raged, entire industries were curtailed, and now the invaders - mainly Mitterrand and Thatcher - came and imposed the European Union on the entire continent ... This is a ship of slaves. The British equipped it, pushed the Europeans into it, but did not sit down themselves. From the side they watch and have fun. Germany could be the engine of economic recovery, but without the European Union, the European Central Bank and the euro, those poisonous pills. So they sit with huge unemployment, dying out production and lose everything that Germany could do on its own. "
"All Central and Western Europe in the clutches of the oligarchy"
But "unification of Europe" is not the last word of Mondialism. Already before our very eyes, over the past few years, the concept of "international law" has been eroded and replaced by the concept of "human rights", which actually means the right to occupy any country in any part of the world where supranational structures perceive certain "violations".
Having turned 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 foundations is followed by the erosion of the institution of the family and other basic foundations of man as a species. It seems that in the final plans for building a "single world" (in which communist, liberal and democratic tendencies merge) - the destruction of all hierarchy and human institutions, except for the monetary hierarchy.
As Lyndon LaRouche notes: “All of Central and Western Europe is in the clutches of an oligarchy that stands above governments. The highest authority there is the central banks. And central banks are private central banks ... controlling governments. "
A complex and flourishing multipolar world against mondialism
So, having reviewed the situation as a whole, we are now ready to take a fresh look at the events in Kiev. We now understand why the Ukrainian problem, which is spreading with an ever more turbulent stream, actually has only two solid shores - Russia and Germany. And it is unlikely that now we will call the “Maidan fire” an accident, which broke out at the very moment (or even somewhat anticipating it), when a new possibility of rapprochement between Ukraine and Russia and Russia and Germany a little dawned on. In geopolitical reality, such accidents do not happen.
The whole complexity of the prospects for Russian-German agreements on the Ukrainian problem has already become clear to us. 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 sprouts of awakening 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 national property.
The latest scandals with the disappeared German gold in the basements of American banks, the impudent wiretapping of the top officials of Germany and the boorish neglect of the voice of their colonial slaves by the "masters of discourse" ("f ... of EU" from Madame Nuland) open our eyes to the real state of affairs, even zombified by official propaganda to German citizens.
Thinking Germans, on the other hand, regard a strategic alliance with Russia as an opportunity for the whole of Europe to free themselves from their political and economic dependence and free themselves from the chimera of mondialism.
Finally, however 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 a European Defense Community, according to which, following the national economies, the national armies had to merge into one and become subordinate to supranational structures. Naturally, if this project were realized, the mondialist diktat in Europe would be much tougher than it is today.
One can also recall 1963, when, shortly after the Cuban missile crisis, which brought the world to the brink of atomic war, Konrad Adenauer and De Gaulle undertook a real anti-mondialist demarche, signing a cooperation agreement as the first step towards uniting Europe based on the state sovereignty of nations.
And although this uprising ended in defeat (Adenauer was removed from power, several assassination attempts were organized on De Gaulle, and a few years later France was blown up from within by the so-called youth revolution, which ensured its sharp left), it shows completely different moods of Europeans than those that is imposed today by mondialist propaganda.
These sentiments are not only alive today, they are growing. It seems that Russian policy in Europe should be based on the all-round 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 make the great source of civilization, reason, prosperity choke on its ashes? .. On what foundations can it be built? In reality, only states are naturally very different, each with its own soul, its own history, its own language, but only they are endowed with the natural right to establish laws and the right to make decisions. And to think that people can agree with something ... over states is a chimera "- these words of De Gaulle (and not at all the creation of an eastern analogue of the ECSC) should obviously become an alternative" European program "for Russia.
Russia has its own project of a free, complex and flourishing multipolar world, different from Mondialism, with new centers of power emerging before our eyes (China, India, the Arab world).
And the project of a new Europe - a Europe of traditional Christian values, in which a person-person will be preserved, and not a being without a specific gender and identity; Europe, whose peoples will not be turned into a "silent herd" without family and memory, under the control of the financial aristocracy; A Europe in which all decisions will be made not by a bunch of almighty bankers, but by the real governments of countries defending their national interests, must become a part of it.
It is very difficult, but the only possible way for us to Europe.
It is already clear that getting 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 become 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 sympathy of the people of Ukraine and turn the energy of chaos into the energy of creation; and for Kiev, which once became the "mother of Russian cities" - to become not a miserable appendage of the Atlantic colony under the dictatorship of bankers, but the cornerstone of building a new free Europe.
Information